General Committee - 16 June 2025 Transcript

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING ¶

▶ 00:00:14

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶

▶ 00:00:24

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶

▶ 00:00:40

00:01:00 the reports in relation to the grants up front but they should not take a significant amount of time to deal with. So, we then move to the General Committee meeting minutes dated 12 May 2025. Do we have someone willing to move? I think Councillor Wegener was first and Councillor Wilkie was the seconder. I presume there will be no debate. All those in favour? That's unanimous. We now have a deputation from Janelle Parsons in regard to the Youth Connect Group. So, welcome Janelle if you can come to the left and then you have up to 15 minutes. Janelle Parsons: Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon, Mayor, CEO and councillors. I am Janelle Parsons. Now, I'm a qualified councillor, a two-time published author and a trauma recovery specialist and I'm completing my final year of my psychology degree. I'm also a mother and a survivor of

4.1 GENERAL COMMITTEE MINUTES DATED 12 MAY 2025 ¶

▶ 00:01:14· Carried unanimously 7-0 from council's minutes

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

6.1 Deputation: Youth Connect Group Applicant: Janelle Parsons Speakers: Janelle Parsons ¶

▶ 00:01:37

00:02:00 domestic violence and also for childhood violence. I also have founded Rise and Thrive Co. It's a non-for-profit charity on the ground every single day working with youth across our region. I have lived through the system of values and I work now every day to repent. I know what it feels like to feel unseen and unheard and I also know how dangerous it can be for young people who are left without guidance, connection or opportunity. I'm not here for your calls. I don't need it. The work I do speaks for itself. I'm here because the safety and wellbeing of our youth and our community depend on action, not just awareness. We need to do more than just talk. What's happening in Noosa is not isolated. Youth are gathering

00:03:00 on Hastings Street every weekend, long weekend and school holidays. They go there because they've got nowhere else to go. E-scooters are being used in assaults, intimidation and to provoke police chases. Now these aren't hiding criminals. They are bored, disconnected and unmonitored youth looking for a sense of belonging in all the wrong places. Now I talk to the police and they do not want to lock these kids up underneath the new laws of adult crime, adult time. They want to work with us. Schools are exhausted. Families are overwhelmed. And our young people, well our young people, they feel invisible. Now I've spent months gathering first hand accounts from Sunshine Beach State High where many students are disengaged and teachers

00:04:00 are feeling unsupported. Noosa District State High where schools are being forced to choose between funding literacy programs or providing better mental health services to their peers. And Noosa Flesi School where students say to me outright, no one listens to us. QPS officers including Senior Sergeant John Friar have confirmed what we all know. This is a crisis of connection, not of crime. It is about a privilege gap. Kids with everything materialised but they lack in being given accountability. Kids who come from trauma and lack in love and opportunities. I'm here to propose to you a Youth Connect Group, a monthly forum where youth, schools, QPS and community services, we can all come together. Now this is about identifying issues early, sharing our resources, solving problems together and giving our youth a seat at the

00:05:00 table. But that's just the beginning. We need alcohol free events, youth led events during school holidays like music, sport and workshops. Held away from Hastings Street in safe accessible places like the sports ovals we have near Noosa Junction. We must stop criticising parents and start supporting them with real tools, digital safety, trauma prevention tools and education and emotional regulation strategies. I have already created these resources through Rise and Thrive Co and they can be delivered through schools, libraries and community hubs. All we need is the Minister Council's back. How else are we bringing? So just let me be clear, this is not a passion project. It's professionally built through lived experience

00:06:00 and informed movement. I've turned my own journey through generational trauma into being an award winning program writer and facilitator. Being a two time author, my latest book, Roy's Journey to a Happy Home, was published to help young children who can understand and express their traumas. I coach basketball teams. I run school programs in our community. I've worked with 98 students in term one already. I started Sunshine High in term three and Noosa District as well. I work alongside QPS and frontline workers. I bring education and experience. And I'm now asking you to match that platform with your support. I'm formally requesting the Council support the establishment of a Youth Connect group, co-facilitated with Rise and Thrive Co. That Council invest in alcohol free youth positive spaces and events during school holidays. And that Rise and

00:07:00 Thrive's host parents, parent resources and trauma informed education tools be adopted and distributed across the Noosa region via council, library and networks. You don't need to create the solution, I wrote that for you. What I need from you is access, amplification and action. Because if we don't intervene now, we're going to pay for it later. In violence, disconnection and broken futures. I'm not asking for permission. I'm offering my partnership, my purpose and a plan if that works. You all know someone, either directly in your network, your family or your neighbour, who's experienced this. So I'm asking you to change the story of Noosa's youth together. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. So, councillors, as suggested, we'll do section 8, items 1 through to 8 first.

00:08:00 So the first item are the community grants, if we can bring Alton up and Karen. Speaker 2: So the first report today we've got is the summary report of all our community grants. So our community grants that we're considering this round are our community project grants, which includes events, includes equipment. Includes infrastructures and programs and projects. The other part we're bringing to the table is our three-year grants, which is our alliance and signature community events. We are recommending a total of $251,533.53 for our community project grants.

8.1 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM SUMMARY - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS, THREE-YEAR COMMUNITY ALLIANCE AGREEMENTS AND THREE-YEAR SIGNATURE COMMUNITY EVENTS ¶

▶ 00:08:08· Carried 7-0 from council's minutes

00:09:00 And for our three-year grants, we're recommending $190,870.11. That then gives us a remaining budget of just over $111,000 to be put forward to our quick response, our individual sports grants, and any emergent grant respondents that we receive throughout the year as well. So this is our first year that we're running the new policy, and our new policy only covers that one year of community grants. So it's only open for one year. We're then looking to open up our quick response grants in September. So we're looking for applications. But just in case some very emergent grants come through and they slip the gap in terms of that one year, we've also got a little bit of remaining budget to cover that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Do we have any questions from the floor? Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you, through the chair. Thank you for your report. It was well written and informative.

00:10:00 Given we've had new policies and there's a bit of transition going on in the community, a question through the chair to the staff. I just have a couple of questions just to help with the education process and support people, mostly volunteers that are having to make these applications. My question is, what is the process when determining the allocation of monies to ensure equity and fairness is applied to each individual application, including number of events held across the Shire in each town location? Very good question, Councillor, through the chair. Speaker 2: So we have a very transparent and consistent approach when talking about the assessment and allocation of our grant funding. For community projects, so we're talking specifically for community projects, is there a need for a grant to be applied to each individual application? Each application is evaluated on its individual merit against the set criteria. So that set criteria for community projects includes demonstrated need, benefit to the organisation and wider community, alignment to strategic goals and key initiatives, contributions, so what the applicant contributes,

00:11:00 whether it's financial or in-kind contributions, and organisation's capability to actually deliver the event or deliver the project. Once scored by the actual officer, we then take it to a moderation panel, which is made up of senior staff. For the actual moderation, before it's actually been presented to the councillors as part of a workshop. To ensure the equity and fairness, consideration is also given to the geographic distribution of the grant funding across the Shire as well. So we do look at that in terms of our community project grants. And the other consideration that we always look at as well is obviously the grant availability in, sorry, the budget availability allocated to grants. So we are working towards a proposed budget availability. As such, for 25, 26, and that's the budget we work towards. Speaker 3: Thank you. It's fair to say that historically, this is always a difficult space. The value of the applications that come in is always greater than the budget that we have.

00:12:00 But we're in a fantastic position that council does support the community through community grants. So it's a very stringent process that we go through to make sure that those most worthy are then recommended for funding. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Following on from that, how is Noosa Council addressing red tape reduction across our community grants program to help support our volunteers who spend considerable hours working diligently on the applications to council? Speaker 2: Thank you, council. Another good question. Thank you. So council recognises the really important role that volunteers play in this space. They support the community. They support our community, that we actually, so we really, we really need our own volunteers to do this for us. So in terms of responses to our grant applications, we've recently reviewed our grant community grants policy to make it easier and supportive for our volunteers to apply.

00:13:00 We've also re-looked at our guidelines and application forms to try and streamline it so we're not requesting such detailed information. So whatever information we're receiving, we're actually utilising our application forms. We're just seeking that essential information. We've got three-year community grant categories in place as well. So those organisations that are looking to do long-term events or we're looking for, we're giving them three-year grant applications. We're offering grant running workshops throughout the community. We also do our grants network and nibbles nights as well where we're bringing in external grant bodies too to look at grant opportunities for those particular organisations. So that's really important. We also have a development officer to provide support with running their applications. And that development officer not only looks at community grants that we supply as council but also external grant opportunities as well. So we really do tap into other, our external partners and we also offer our online system as well through SmartyGrants.

00:14:00 So it's not paper-based, et cetera, and we do take on board people's feedback and I think that's the most essential part that we do look at. So one of those pieces of feedback that we received this round is we've got events that have been occurring in July. We only let organisations know at the end of June or once budget comes down that they're actually successful. So we need to reconsider our guidelines and ensure that we incorporate some of those events from July-August time period so that it gives them assurance that they do have funding moving forward. Speaker 3: I think a particular example, Councillor Finzel, is that through the review that we've done, we recognise that, you know, the three-year grant programs offers certainty to groups for the three years. But it's also a lot of work. It's very attractive funding. Everybody wants to get a three-year grant. So that requires a lot of work. And that can then be, you're putting a lot of work in.

00:15:00 But actually, you're putting a lot of work in. You don't meet the criteria or you don't have a strong case. So we've introduced a two-stage process, which enables organisations to just put in an expression of interest, which is only a small amount of information. Really the key information that helps the assessment panel understand, you know, what is the proposal? Does it meet the criteria, et cetera? And then for those that do, they go on and do a full application. For those that don't, then they will be referred. Say, to back to the community grant program, which is single-year funding. And referred to work with a community development officer. So that they can better position themselves for the next round of three-year funding. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Just to follow up on that, I did ask about, and I might have missed it, the number of events held across the Shire. In the process for your evaluation, do you also check, like, do we have equity across the Shire?

00:16:00 Like, X, you know, down at the coast, versus X in the hinterland? Speaker 2: Absolutely, in terms of our events, yes. We do look at the geographic location of events, yes. Speaker 3: It's absolutely part of what we look at to try and get a spread. But, for example, if we had an application come in that did not score very well, even though it might have been in an area that was underrepresented, we wouldn't recommend that funding if we could see that actually, fundamentally, there were issues with the event. But we try to get a good spread across the Shire. Speaker 2: I think what the development officers do really well, too, is provide detailed feedback as well. So, to the applicant, so if they're in contact with a development officer, they will get that feedback along the way while they're writing their application. And once, if they're unsuccessful, or they didn't receive the funding that they require, the development officer will actually meet with them and look at other opportunities to support them as well. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of opportunities, so you mentioned before there are some organisations that have events July, August.

00:17:00 And today, or Thursday, they'll be formally notified whether they've been successful or not. Some may have not received the funding that they were anticipating. In terms of a shortfall, are they still eligible to reapply under either our emergent grants or our quick response grants? Can they reapply to help meet that shortfall? And are there other opportunities? Can we reallocate resources, for example, under our placemaking project to help them meet the shortfall? Speaker 2: I think to answer part of that question, so our quick response grants won't be open until September. So we need that time to open those particular grants up. The emergent grants? Yeah, so quick response, emergent grants, we call it quick response. So if an event is actually happening in July, then obviously they would not be able to repatch that quick response.

00:18:00 Speaker 3: But, so what I would say is that when an applicant is funded under one program, they're generally not then funded under another program for the same thing. What we do do, though, is work with the applicant to say, how else can you support the activity that you're wanting to do? If the money that has been provided isn't sufficient, what else can you do? Often what we find is that it's really natural for community organisations to come to Council. Our application process is very simple compared to a lot of other application processes. There's a lot of other funding that's available out there. So our grants officer's role is to work with that community organisation and say, what else can you look at? Are there other bodies? Is there philanthropic funding? Is there a revenue based element that you could include into your activity? And often lots of ideas then come through that.

00:19:00 Speaker 5: Question? Thanks. Councillor Phillips: Just in relation to the, more just wondering if there's a process that we have to check the success of the project in three years. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Speaker 2: So if we're talking about three years, so for our Alliance and Signature community events, at the end of each year, we do require an acquittal of their funds, which looks at the progress of their activity that they're doing. And then they need to show that case that they've actually spent that money on the appropriate items. And then we'll actually, and then we would sign that off. And then they would re-invoice us for that second year. Councillor Phillips: Okay. But sorry. So in that single year. Or more just like measuring the success of the program rather than that process. And technical. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So the success of the program is absolutely captured in their acquittal. Okay. Yep. Speaker 3: They have to report around. Because when they apply, they will have made certain commitments.

00:20:00 They will be saying about certain outcomes that they're going to achieve. And so the acquittal covers all that. They have to provide demonstrated evidence that they achieved what they said they were going to achieve. Yeah. Yeah. Whether that's in terms of volume of numbers or a change that was going to occur or a number of people that they were going to engage. Yeah. And balancing that though against an administrative burden. So we won't be asking for things that are really unnecessary, that just puts too much of a burden on the volunteer organisation. Speaker 2: But I do think we've also had those discussions as well internally. Some of our improvements too is how to celebrate some of those great successes as well. So not only celebrating that an organisation's put on an eventual particular project, but what have we actually got out of that? So from a council perspective as well. So making sure that we are celebrating and letting people know. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Just one more question. How do we communicate with the strategy around how the community would know that the grants

00:21:00 are coming and the application process and things like that? Speaker 2: Yep. Yep. So in terms of when the grants actually open. A number of different ways. So the traditional ways, newspaper, social media, et cetera. We've also got our community connect e-news as well that goes out to all not-for-profit community organisations that are on our mailing list. So I think there's over 600 on our mailing list at the moment. We do our grants networks, nipples nights. We do our grants workshops. And then we've also got development offices that are allocated to particular community organisations that they work with. Speaker 3: And any of, say for example, the three year funding agreements, all of the current recipients would get contacted directly. And I always say to staff, have you, you know, people's lives are busy, things can disappear through emails. Have you made a phone call to make sure that they know about it? And so they try and reach out that way. Speaker 2: Our challenge obviously is we are dealing with volunteers, not-for-profit organisations. So there is turnover. Yeah. There are some that slip through the gaps.

00:22:00 Hence why we do, you know, making sure that through our policy that we would allow out of rounds if there was an emergent need for it. Councillor Wilkie. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Chair. The grants program has evolved over the years. What is the total amount that's reinvested back in the community now by this grants program annually? Speaker 3: The total grants program, including things like sports, field maintenance, et cetera, up to about $10,000. Approximately $1 million a year, probably across a year. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. It covers a lot. Speaker 3: So today we've got the one-year grants and then community alliance and signature grants. But there's halls and communities. There's sports fields and sports grounds. There's quite a few. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. And could you explain a bit about what the Individual Sports Development Grants is about and what led to you, prompted you to add this? Yeah. Yeah.

00:23:00 Speaker 3: So through the work that we've done with our sports organisations and understanding, you know, we've got great talent out there. This feedback has come back through us over a couple of years that it can be then really expensive for families to be able to support their young people who are reaching, say, state-level, national-level, international-level competition. And there's not a lot of avenues to be able to get some of those young people involved and support through that. And so this comes about through that work that we've done to say, how can council demonstrate that we're supporting our up-and-coming talent? So this is something, this has come through the grants review policy that we are going to trial. And because it's not something that you can have once a year and say, okay, everybody, you need to get your application in now, we're going to trial it over what we call a rolling open round. And as people, this need comes up, they will be able to apply for it.

00:24:00 So we're looking forward to seeing what comes through the process. Also planning to open that in September as well. September. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I am going to just raise another question. And that's because I've received a phone call earlier this morning in relation to the Pomona Fun Day. It's a significant event, a vibrant event. And it is what the Pomona community needs. We are now expecting, given that the King of the Mountain event is now cancelled, the shortfall of the funding that they requested is quite significant. And the timeframe that's required for them to try to find that shortfall is limited. Mayor Wilkie: Point of order, Mr Chair. This sounds like advocating for a grants recipient rather than asking you a question. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. I accept that. But can I just reiterate your commitment to working proactively with the local organisations

00:25:00 and giving them proactive feedback. Absolutely. Thank you very much. And I accept the point of order. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Ms Finzel's going to move the recommendation. I'll second it then. Mr Chair. You've got the floor, Councillor Finzel. Yes. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Look, I think this is one of the things that we all love to celebrate in our role here. We're all here because it's all about our communities. And our benefactors sit at the centre of everything we do. I wish I had more money to hand out because I think, you know, as we give to these groups and the people in our community, we all thrive and everyone benefits. We could spend the afternoon here addressing all the benefits that these community grants bring to our individuals, to our young people, to our ageing population and to our environment. So I'm happy to move this and look forward to hearing all the good news and the celebrations that come forth when we see community connect with one another. And we know that that builds real resilience. And given the impacts of weather events and what's happening in our community now, it

00:26:00 just keeps coming. And I think these grants contribute to building that resilience in community. Bringing people together to connect with one another and build those relationships that in times of trouble, you know, we all need. Our neighbour, our friends. So I think it's a wonderful time. And for me personally, it's a highlight in my role here. Thank you. And thank you to all the staff. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to talk to the nation? Councillor Leigh. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. I agree. So, again, reiterate what Councillor Finzel said. This is probably one of the highlights of our job, giving money to good community groups. I want to stress, we're not handing out money. What we're doing is investing. Investing in people, in ideas, and the future of Noosa. The grants empower seriously passionate locals to drive projects that make a real difference.

00:27:00 Work that can't be resourced internally, but it's essential in protecting what makes this place so special. For me, what grants offer is a unique opportunity. A window into who we are as a community, and what we truly value. They highlight the causes that this community champion, the issues that we refuse to ignore, and the legacy that we're building for our future generations. Just, again, not about financial support. It's just about enabling good people to do great things for our community. So thank you, and happy to support the report of Noosa. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Just quickly, yeah. I'll back up the other councillors' comments. You guys, Alison, Kerri, thank you very much. It's a fantastic team that does the whole grants program.

00:28:00 My experience has been phenomenal. I just would like to mention to councillors, next year at the budget, I would like us to throw a little bit more money into the bucket. I think it's money very well spent, as Emily said. Speaker 2: Thank you. Just through the chair, I just wanted to make sure, Kelly Shaw is our new grants officer. She's only got a bit out of the table, probably the last six or seven weeks, and she's doing a phenomenal job. So just watch this space. I think we see some great improvements and great celebrations around the grants that we're providing to our community as well. She's got a real focus on that. Fantastic. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else? Councillor Finzel, do you propose? Councillor Finzel: I think it's all been said. We just look forward to the celebration. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I put the motion. All those in favour? That's carried unanimously. We then move on to the second, which is one of the specific grants, which is the 25-26 community grant program, community project grant events.

8.2 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (EVENTS) ¶

▶ 00:28:55

00:29:00 Do we have a mover for that? Mayor Wilkie: Are there any conflicts? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have a conflict? Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. We're too quick. Thank you. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I form the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, item 8.2, 2025-26 community grants program, community project grants events. In this matter, in relation to the funding recommendation, in relation to the funding recommendation to the Hastings Street Association, as my sister-in-law, Joanne Phillips, is a member of the committee of the Hastings Street Association. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias, because my sister-in-law does not stand to receive a personal benefit. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate

00:30:00 in the decision. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got a question first, Councillor Phillips. Have you sort of guidance on whether this is a declarable or a prescribed? Councillor Phillips: Larry, I have spoken to Larry about this one. Yes. This is where we landed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, the sister-in-law will be a close associate under the Act, and the amount, and she's on the committee, so she holds the executive position. She's not just a normal member. I think that's correct. I think that's correct. That's a very good question. Councillor Phillips: I haven't clarified her role, because she's just a normal committee member. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Committee or member? Councillor Lorentson: Does she have any decision making passed? That's the question. That's the question. Yeah. Councillor Wilson: Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll deal with it. We'll not get into it. It's up to her to try and clarify. Councillor Phillips: Well, because I don't want to say...

00:31:00 I don't actually... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So in the absence of... In the absence of clarity, I would suggest the safe thing to do would be to relieve the room. Councillor Phillips: Yeah. Okay. I'm having to respect the decision of the Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, yeah. You don't have to. It's just if you're unclear. My view would be that if she's on a committee, that is, an executive of the role, and she's a close associate, I believe, under the Act, that would make the decision right, if that's the case. That's right. And Councillor Finzel, you... Councillor Finzel: Well, I've got the compliance mandatory training manual in front of me. And on page 59, it says, if a council voluntarily declares a conflict of interest with any of these matters, this is taken to be a declarable conflict of interest, as if the eligible councillors have declared it, decided it is a declarable conflict. So are you saying we don't think there's enough information around the room to keep it declarable?

00:32:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: With the words that was used that she's on the committee and the declaration, that would normally, in my view, trigger it being as described rather than declarable. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Through the Chair... That's quite correct. Through the Chair, I have the Hastings Road Association website in front of me. The Executive Committee has Councillor Phillips' sister-in-law as the Vice President, unless that's not current. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. That's that. I think that... I made that call. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 8: So that's my... That's my error. Mm. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So do we have any questions, or would someone like to move to recommendation? Councillor Lorentson: Happy to move on recommendation. Happy to second it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Robertson moved. Councillor Lorentson: No, just saying this, that I did initially. Thank you for the hard work and thank you for your commitment to bring this grant forward. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any other Councillors wish to talk to the item?

00:33:00 No? Councillor Finzel: Yes. I'd just like also to add, like, on top of the great work our staff does, I'd like to just acknowledge the hard work that all the committees and the incorporations and the volunteers do. They do put a lot of their time and energy into putting these grants in, so I also would like to acknowledge the amount of work that they do. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All done. Councillor Lorentson and the... All set. Thank you very much. Put the motion notes in favour. That's unanimous. Councillor Phillips to come back in. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And move on to third item in this section, which is community grant program, community project grant programs and projects.

8.3 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM – COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (PROGRAM/PROJECTS) ¶

▶ 00:33:38· Carried 7-0 from council's minutes

00:34:00 Do we have any questions, or someone willing to move the recommendations? Mayor Wilkie: This is number three. Number three. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Go on. Mayor Wilkie: Just check. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Check if there's any conflict there. Councillor Lorentson: No. No. Just the three? Yes. Janelle Parsons: Got one. Yes. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: This is just part of the program of $1 million plus that we invest back in the community each year. As being said, it is a credit to the volunteers of these organisations that do have to go through the process of applying for these grants and acquitting the grants. It does require effort on their part. But they do a great job in making Noosa a great community to live, part of the social fabric of the community.

00:35:00 Happy to support. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to talk? No? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. We'll move on to the fourth item, which is 2536, Community Grants Program, Community Project Grants Infrastructure. Do we have any declarations on this one? No. Do we have any questions or someone willing to move it? Mayor Wilkie: Moved. Councillor Finzel: Happy to second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Moved. Councillor Wilkie. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wilkie. Mayor Wilkie: Wave my right to speak. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to speak to this one? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. And we move on to the fifth item, which is Community Grants Program, Community Project Grants for Equipment. Do we have any declarations to be made on this particular item? No. Looks like we do. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Oh, okay. Yes. I thought it was the next one.

8.4 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (INFRASTRUCTURE) ¶

▶ 00:35:10· Carried 7-0 from council's minutes

00:36:00 In accordance with Chapter 55B of the Local Government Act, I am from the meeting that I have prescribed conflict of interest in relation to item 8.5, the 2025-2006 Community Grants Program, Community Project Grants Equipment in relation to the funding application to Pomona Arts, the Majestic Theatre. On this agenda, as I am a community member of the Pomona Arts Incorporation and as a result of my conflict of interest, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered to build it up. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is there someone who is willing to move the motion? Speaker 8: Councillor Wilson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconded by Councillor Phillips. Do you wish to talk to the motion, Councillor Wilson? No. Okay. Councillor Wilson: Just some excellent community groups that we're supporting through these, so glad to do it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to discuss the matter?

00:37:00 I'll put the motion to those in favour. That's carried unanimously. If we could ask Councillor Wegener to come back into the meeting. Speaker 6: Excellent. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Move on to the sixth item, which is Community Grants. Community Grants Program, Three-Year Community Alliance Agreements. We have a declaration, or more than one declaration. Councillor Wilson: Councillor Wilson. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I inform the meeting that I have prescribed conflict of interest in relation to item 8.6, 2025-26 Community Grants Program, Three-Year Community Alliance Agreements. On this agenda, in relation to the funding application to Pomona Arts Incorporated, I am giving recommendation to Noosa Arts Theatre, as I am the Senior Vice President. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on.

8.6 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - THREE-YEAR COMMUNITY ALLIANCE AGREEMENTS ¶

▶ 00:37:12

00:38:00 I will exit stage one. Mayor Wilkie: We've got the one up there for the Gymnastics Club, not the Noosa Arts Theatre. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We have a declaration. And I'll just get that up. . Councillor Finzel: . . . . Speaker 8: . . . Mayor Wilkie: I, Councillor Wilkie, inform the meeting that I no longer have prescribed conflict of interest in this matter, as I resign from my position

00:39:00 as Committee Member of Noosa Arts Theatre, nor do I recommend the recipients of the Alliance Grant. I am now a general life member and volunteer of the theatre. . Councillor Wegener: Okay. So let's just add . Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All badly. Councillor Wegener: . Actually, I have a conflict of interest on 8.6 here, Mr. Chair, which is Pomona Arts, Incorporated, on the second page. Councillor Wilson: Is that the same one? Same one, yeah. The same one as before, I'll just go ahead and grab that. Councillor Wegener: It's nice to see that there's lots of conflict of interest because that means that you actually were on the boards and working, you know, with these fantastic organizations. Okay.

00:40:00 I'll just change that. Oh, yes, sir. The name of the grant is? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I won. You won, right? We're good? Councillor Wilson: Uh-huh. I was going to change that. All right. Councillor Wilson: Three community alliance grants. Councillor Wegener: You did? Okay. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I informed the meeting that I had a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to Item 5, 8.6, actually, 2025 through 2026, Community Grants Alliance.

00:41:00 To the year community alliance, community alliance agreement in relation. On this agenda, as I am a committee member of the Pomona Arts Incorporation, as a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. We have a councilor willing to move the recommendation. Happy to move. Councilor Tindall, Councilor Filch, and a seconder, if you wish to talk to the motion council. Councillor Finzel: I think we've said a lot, but I do love the signature events, because when I've worked on committees back in the past, you know, applying for these grants, you know, rolling it over, alliance grants, my apologies, got excited, I think it's great because it leaves the committee to get on with the job of delivering what they need to bring to the community, so I love these, and I think it's a wonderful opportunity, and I know when you meet with committee members that actually get, finally get this up, because it's quite a big process, and I think it's

00:42:00 a wonderful opportunity, and I know when you meet with committee members that actually get this up, because it's quite a big process, and be able to have that assurity that they can operate for three years, with that money, and really do some forward strategic planning, I think we all benefit from that, so I think it's worth raising that. Thanks for listening. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Anyone else wish to talk? And no? I'll put the resolution, those in favour, it's unanimous, if we can invite them to stand up and take in the leaves. Okay, we now move on to 8.7, which is 2526, community grants program, and I'll put the resolution, those in favour, it's unanimous, if we can invite them to stand up and take in the leaves.

00:43:00 Signature Community Event Grades, do we have any declarations in regard to this one? Yes we do. Councillor Wilson: We'll leave it to Councillor Wilson first. Based on what he said at that council meeting earlier on, I think this is already on its way. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I inform the meeting that I have a prescribed competitive interest for IT. I have an 8.7 2025-26 Community Grades Programme, three year signature community event grants on this matter in relation to the funding recommendation to the Cooroy Tengro of Commerce as my partner, Roy Vanderboog, is on the executive committee.

00:44:00 As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Mayor Wilkie: In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, an informed meeting after a terrible conflict of interest around 8.7 community events per year and three years signature community events grants on this in relation to the funding recommendation to New South Wales. According to Queensland Government's Guide to Conflict of Interest, dated April 25, being solely a patron of an organisation does not in itself constitute a terrible conflict of interest. However, I would like to declare as a precautionary measure that I have linked to one of Israel's patrons, David Williamson, and that Mr Williamson has contributed to my previous incalculation in an age to a value of more than $2,000, which is considered a prescribed conflict if Mr Williamson or a group he was an executive committee member of were to be the recipient of grant funding. As a result of this...

00:45:00 ...electoral donation and potential prescribed conflict of interest for full disclosure and to avoid any perceptions of bias regarding my consideration of Israel's grant submission, I will choose to leave the meeting room in accordance with my legislative obligations. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilkie, just before you go, I don't think the words that you said reflect in the last sentence. I think as a result of this electoral donation link, I think you said and potential conflict of interest versus any prescribed conflict of interest. Mayor Wilkie: I'll leave it as is. It's ambiguous, but I'm declaring it's out of an abundance of caution, so I'm happy to leave it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As prescribed? Yes. As you say, your patron is not the same as any particular donor. No. So I would just... You could just leave it as a link and potential conflict of interest and or... Yes. ...conflict of interest. It's up to you. Mayor Wilkie: Yes, okay. A potential conflict of interest.

00:46:00 But as long as it's clear that I'm not a part of the decision-making process. Yes, sir. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, councillors, do we have any questions or someone willing to move the recommendation? Can we move Councillor Wegener, seconded by Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Wegener? No. Quick, I reckon, speech. Anyone else wish to speak? No? I'll put the motion in those in favour. As you know, we can invite the councillors back in here. Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Thanks. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We can invite Cheyenne and Ben, and there's those two, to the table, and they can give us an overview on item 8, which is Environment and Climate Change Resilient Grants, Environment

8.8 ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE GRANTS - ENVIRONMENT PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND 20), CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE GRANTS (ROUND 5) ¶

▶ 00:46:35· Carried 6-1 · 2 divisions from council's minutes

00:47:00 and Project Grants, Round 20, Climate Change Response Plan, Round 5. Speaker 3: Hello, Chair. Hello, councillors. Hello. Speaker 6: Good afternoon. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And welcome to the executive summary. Director Rawlings: Yes. Speaker 6: Thanks very much, Chair. We've had the rounds 20 and round 5 of the Environmental Project Grants and Climate Change Resilience Grants. Applications were put out, or applications were open in between early February and late March this year. We received a total of 10 applications, oh, sorry, 15 applications, 10 for the Environment Grants and 5 for the Climate Change Grants. This year, we changed our application process a little bit, where we had a requirement of each application for candidates to be engaged with council offices prior to submitting their application. So, we can testify that all 15 applications were really strong and aligned really well

00:48:00 with council strategies and plans and current programs as well. So, our strength of application this year is absolutely fantastic. So, our strength of application this year is absolutely fantastic. We received, for the Environment Project Grants, we received 10 applications to the total of $172,000. We've got a budgeted grant amount for $23,000, just over $23,000, and they're funded from the Environment Levy. With our Climate Change Resilience Grants, we've got a general rates budget of $50,000, and we received applications for 10 applications to the total of $172,000. So, both grant schemes were oversubscribed. Once we received all the grant applications, we got a board of assessors together from the Environment Team and the Climate Change Team. We went through conflicts of interest in making sure that nobody who had a, no council officers

00:49:00 that had a connection to the grant applicants or had been engaged with them to submit an application were part of the assessment process. So, from then that staff pool, we were able to allocate independent assessors, and each assessment panel was made up of one management or coordinator, one technical officer with, one officer with technical skill in those areas, and one independent from outside who couldn't look at the grant application without the technical experience, who couldn't look at the merits of the grant application, so they were matched up against the different strategies. Following our assessments, we then ranked, and then we ranked, and then we ranked, and then we ranked all of the, all of the applications to the Environment Grants, and ranked all of the Climate Change Grants. We then had a moderation session with Director Kim Rawlings, and we went through a recommendation that was put through to council through this report. Thank you. That was very comprehensive. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thanks.

00:50:00 Speaker 6: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillors, do we have any questions, or is someone willing to lose the recommendation? Councillor Lorentson: How would you move the recommendation? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you for the report, and for allocating funds to really important environmental projects. Again, I go back to what the grants talked to me about, and it's about the people who love this place so much, and are willing to give up their free time to protect exactly what they love. It also showcases the depth of the expertise that we have in this area. So, happy to support, and I think, you know, a feeling around this table is I, you know, wish we had some more money in the pool. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to move an amendment, if we can bring that up, please.

00:51:00 Councillor Wilson: All right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you want me to bring it up? I've got it, yeah. Councillor Wilson: That covers the whole motion.

00:52:00 Councillor Lorentson: Ah, sure. Councillor Wilson: Yeah, is that how you'd like to do it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's fine, yes. OK, my amendment is that A, be amended to REED, perhaps. Put the word REED in there. REED? Yeah. OK. A, environmental project grants, attachment one, at $23,382, with the inclusion of the Tila Bushland Biodiversity Restoration Initiative, Stage A, to a value of $9,340, and, if necessary, the draft 2526, environmentally...environment living budget, be amended to cover the total of $33,163. Mayor Wilkie: Can I just question the figures? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry? Um... That doesn't look right. Um... It's... That one you've got in orange there,

00:53:00 should read $9,340 for memories. Councillor Lorentson: Yes, it is $9,340. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Ah... Councillor Wilson: Increase that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'll just take that out. Councillor Wilson: Just take it out? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You have a question, Councillor Woodley? Mayor Wilkie: Uh, yeah. I think, um, if I understand correctly, the Teewah... Teewah Land Owners' Association Turtle Trackers Monitoring and Conservation Initiative is recommended for full funding, at $15,025? Speaker 6: That's correct. Close to full funding. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Yeah. Oh, and Wildlife Noosa, This is recommended for full funding at $10,762, so that makes a total of $25,700. Speaker 6: What am I missing? You're missing the star there, which I think is there.

00:54:00 There were some minor adjustments that were made to both of those projects, because they were quite detailed in terms of what was budgeted for that money. And so we're taking small amounts out of that for the recommendation, just to be able to adjust it to the $23,800 that we had for... $23,823, so that we had that matching up. Mayor Wilkie: So the maths are right now? That's correct. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have a seconder? Mayor Wilkie: I'll second it for the purpose of the debate. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, so councillors, as the staff have recognised, we had a number of high-quality applications. The one that I am proposing we add in, that was the third-ranked project, which is the one immediately after the two that were recommended. The cut-off line was based on the total budget being available to be that which was in this current year's budget.

00:55:00 The amount of these individual grants was reduced two years ago to supplement some three-year budgets. But the actual overall budget for grants under the environment levy hasn't increased in recent years. My suggestion is that the total budget for environmental grants as part of the allocation of the environmental levies that we receive next year be increased to allow the approval of three applications rather than two. And that's what's proposed. As the staff have identified, this is their words, this is a really good project. It aligns with CHAP and the environmental strategy, strong in kind and community ownership. It's a particularly valuable project that it's starting the community keeping involved in the management of the North Shore coast. It is one of the highest risk areas of the coast.

00:56:00 And so I think that the ability to allocate environmental levy funds next year allows us to actually just include an additional project. Councillor Wegener: Maybe Ben, could you describe the project to us? Sure. Speaker 6: Through the Chair, it's an environmental restoration grant for an area of bushland reserve just south of Teewah Village, which is directly on the foreshores. And we know that it's a particularly weak area. So it's at stage one of what will be quite a well-planned project to strengthen the native vegetation of the area, which will provide the resilience that that community needs, particularly for road access in and out. So it's adjacent to Teewah Village, just to the south.

00:57:00 Works in community land and benefits the community. Councillor Wegener: With that track there, because there's a high tide, people might be driving up on the dunes. Would that have an effect on what we're going to be restoring? Speaker 6: I believe it's back from that. And so it takes in the high tide area and it's the section of dunes behind that, which is for the protection. Speaker 4: But yes, driving on dunes does impact the resilience all across Teewah Beach. Councillor Wegener: Can I just note that there's coffee rock under there, and at times that coffee rock has been exposed, and if you actually have had a very difficult time driving at Teewah, through the coffee rocks once they're exposed. So that may be another justification for the management there to hold the sand into place. Speaker 4: They can certainly support it, yes. Councillor Lorentson: Anne Swanson? I highly support the initiative. I know a little bit about it and I think it's a great initiative.

00:58:00 Probably my question is around process. Exactly. And precedence. So are we circumventing good process? Is this a fair and transparent way to be approving grants? A question maybe to yourself, Ben, or maybe a question through CBO. And is this sort of a little bit dangerous because we start setting a precedent to circumvent what I understand is excellent governance, excellent process, probity and equity. I'm just unsure if this is an unfair advantage. Speaker 8: Yeah, I'm not fully familiar about this one coming in, so I'll defer to Ben for a moment and then I'll make my call. Speaker 6: So I can talk to the process that we've had to assess and rank

00:59:00 all of the projects, which is essentially what's been presented to Council. From that process, I'll jump forward a little bit. From that process, that ranking with the numbers, or the requested funds allocated to it, that's where we could see quite clearly these two projects can get funded from what is budgeted. Everything below that obviously fell outside of the budget process. So we had to step back as to where we got, how we got the ranking. So it was based on our application, which is $70,000, which is a fairly deep dive into the merits of the project and the assessment criteria that we've got. It's a suite of weighted assessment criteria, which is provided in the report. Once we've got the application, then it's three separate Council officers assessing the application based on those criteria. And that's done independently.

01:00:00 And then everybody comes together, all the assessors come together to be able to work out those different criteria. And then we have different variations from individual assessors. And so all of the group comes together, we talk about all of the different projects, and that's where we come up with the ranking, which this is how we've ended up with one, two, three, four, five, down to 10. It's not saying 10 doesn't have merit, but assessed against the other ones. It's the Council officers with the technical expertise, plus being able to deep dive and match them up against the different strategies. That's how we've got those criteria. Where that funding gets drawn, Council officers made a recommendation through, which is part of that paper, to this is how much money we've got. This is where it gets put to. Discussions beyond that, that's the motion on the table. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. I think my question is more to the line, should the recommendation have come from staff or a councillor? I've just never seen this before in my five years, and just asking the question,

01:01:00 is this okay? Kim, maybe you can answer the question. Yeah, I'll go. Director Rawlings: Yeah, in terms of process. The projects that are, that sit below the line of what's been recommended are, the line's drawn there because of the money that is available. Yeah. So if there was more money that was available, this, this project would have been recommended. Speaker 4: It would have been the third one. Director Rawlings: Yeah. It would have been the third one. So it's not that it didn't meet criteria, or it didn't, you know, we literally had to draw the line, with what the available funds were. Okay. So this project absolutely meets all the criteria. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And you follow the same property plan. Director Rawlings: And follow exactly the same process. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Can I just ask a subsequent? In setting the total amount available, staff have to assume that the, the budget's going to have the same amount in it as last year. Is that correct? Director Rawlings: Yes. That's correct. That's all we came to. That's all we came to. Yeah. Councillor Wilson: So,

01:02:00 just to clarify, I think the purpose here is really to, for us to approve further budget, not that we're selecting particular projects. Speaker 8: That's right. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. That's right. Yeah. Yes. Councillor Phillips: That's my question to clarify as well. Yeah. the funding is available, if the budget, we have, which we haven't got, had yet. Yeah. Then there'll be extra, which is, your suggestion? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm suggesting that we, Okay. That the budget be framed around putting, extra into the environment levy, environment grants, as part of the allocation of next year's environment levy funding. Mayor Wilkie: Question, with the, with the environment levy, the funds proposed to be, levied for the environment, in next year's budget, this money will be available, as part of the budget? Yes. And Councillor Stockwell is saying that, that extra amount, will be allocated to that particular program, within the environmental levy, schedule of programs. Sure. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a, a process question?

01:03:00 Yeah. We haven't ratified our budget yet. That's correct. So, how can this, amendment, be supported, until that's been signed off? Director Rawlings: So the levy, the levy, if, if, budget is in existence, and unless that is, changed, then it, then it's maintained. We have an allocated amount, in the levy, budget, towards grants, which we've worked within. There are, some, funds in reserve, in the levy, that, that still exist. And we've also done, in the preparations for the budget, some reshuffling, around, projects and expenditure, next year. So there is some, small capacity, in the levy, next year. But that's absolutely correct. This is all subject to, the budget process. All the allocation of our grants are, across all the grant programs.

01:04:00 So it is all, correct, all still subject to budget. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And, just, one other question. Are, environmental grants, now, like, community grants, only once per year? Director Rawlings: Yes. Except for our multi-year environment grants, which are every three years. Councillor Phillips: So, I want to support it, but I'm going to, say, I'm against it, only, because the process feels, really, not right to me, without, the, ratified budget. So, I think, next year, if there's, the funding, through the pro-, the budget, then, I can't see why, if it's every year, that, it doesn't come through, like, like due process, for everyone else. Mayor Wilkie: Question, maybe, for Ben, or, or, Kim. When it comes to determining how, next year's, environment levy, funds are going to be,

01:05:00 distributed, would there be a counsellor, is it, would there be a counsellor workshop, around that? Director Rawlings: Through the chair, the, we can have another workshop. We've had, we've had budget workshops. Yes. And they, they, the allocation of the levy, was covered, through that process. Councillor Wilkie? Yes. Mayor Wilkie: If we wanted to change, what's proposed, under the, proposed levy? Director Rawlings: Well, it does get, it does go through, and gets ratified, through the budget process. So, there it is. Yeah. We have, Yeah. We have, Director of Corporate Services, we have, we have finished, the workshop process. And the next step, is to report the budget, to council. Of course. So, if there's a, if there's a reshuffling, of that. Okay. It probably needs to be done,

01:06:00 Councillor Lorentson: we've got the management grants, or this, quick response grants. Can the T1 group, make an application, for a small part of this project, to be funded, under the, emergent grant, process? Director Rawlings: We don't have emergent, or quick response grants. Or September. In, no, we don't have that category, in our environment. You're right. No. This is under the levy, so this is. That's right. It's quite different. The funding source, is different here. We've been through the levy. It's an interesting question, because our, economic development grants, and our community grants, now both have, quick response, and emergent, grants. We have, we don't have that in environment, grants. That option. So that's. There are three categories, based, and require quite a lot of, pre-planning, and preparation. So yes, we have the annual program,

01:07:00 which has, the environment projects, and alliance grants, and then we have the, multi-year, project grants, which are three year. Okay. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Karen. Council. Council. Yes. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, through the chair. Thank you for the report, to the staff. I understand the merits, of assessment, and the weightings, have gone through, a very rigorous process, and, and that's all above board. I fully support that. My challenge here today, is the process, around, allocating, funding, I don't know what the word is, like forward, or, yes. So, I guess my question is, well firstly, the wording, if necessary, on that, I don't like it, because I don't think it supports, clear enough, what, is trying to be said, which I'm a bit uncertain myself. You, you said, can you just tell me, the two,

01:08:00 projects, that have been, through the chair, funded, can you please remind me, where those funds, are drawn from? Through the chair, to the staff. So they're currently drawn, from the environment levy. Speaker 8: Now, Councillor Finzel: I haven't got the environment levy, in front of me, to, to, the policy, to inform this. When we talk about, the number of, monies allocated, and we've said, that the third one, couldn't go in, because, in the policy, for the environment levy, through the chair, to the CEO, how does that work? Is that, through the policy, does it tell us, that it's constrained, to only two? Is it, you know, I'm just confused, because I think, I feel, sort of like, it's been raised, with other councillors. I feel this process, and it's not about, the merits and the weighting.

01:09:00 I feel that's above, you know, it's ticks all the boxes. I'm just a bit, I don't know, confused, about, this process now, around, how we're pulling money, if necessary. I mean, I like, I like the, the dots dotted, and the T's crossed. So, through the CEO, Speaker 8: so, my understanding from this, is that, that, we have an allocation, through our budget process, we have an allocation, for each of the grants. Our officers have, assessed all the grants, that have been applied for, and, and then, recommended, particular, those two, that could, fit within our, our, allocated amount. So, if we go higher than that, our staff, and we would have to go back, and readjust our budget,

01:10:00 even though our budget, has not been approved yet. So, it's a bit of a, and that's the problem, of doing it this time of year, because we've got a catch 22, where we, you know, we've got a fair understanding, of what the budget's gonna be, but we've not, until it's ratified, actually allocated. We can only allocate, what we believe is, is there from, previous years. And that's what our staff have done. So, that makes it difficult. Again, I'm, I understand that this is a very worthy project, and I, and I hope to be standing in the, in the, in the way of it. But from a process point of view, it's my opinion, that, this is, now, allocating, or, forecasting money, that we haven't actually agreed on, for our projects, even though, it may well be, capable of being, accommodated. But, we haven't, it's, it's, it's sort of a chicken before the egg, exercise, that we've, that we've found ourselves in, over time. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, I think I might ask the, the director,

01:11:00 the process, for these grants, is that, it's based on assumption of, what's in the draft budget. There's no, current, definite, application, for any grants, in the current, random year. It's all about, what may be in the next, like, the next one or two years. Is that correct? Speaker 9: Yes, through the chair, that is correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so, um, and, I'll leave it at that. I don't, Mayor Wilkie: Mr Chair. Yeah. Mr Chair, um, I also believe, the Tewantin, Landowners, Associations, grant application, is extremely worthy. Ah, I also note that, they're also, the recipient, of, the grant already is, part of this environmental, grant round. I'm, also, a stickler for process. What you're saying, and asking for, can be accommodated.

01:12:00 But, what I, have a difficulty with, is at, this stage, of, the budget process. Where, we've, worked very hard, to, come up with a proposed budget, with allocations. This would involve, a minor change, a change to that, change to budget documents. Um, and, it, doesn't sit well with me, for, projects, coming, to this Council, ah, that have been worked, over months. Um, and then, changes, on the floor, of the Council. Um, so, for that reason, I, even though, I, understand, what you're trying to do, it can be done. Ah, in terms of, clarity of process. Um, and, the fact, that the TUR group, is already, is already, the recipient, of a grant. And, that there, may be other, ways we can fund, their project. Unfortunately,

01:13:00 I cannot support, this amendment. Speaker 9: Through you Chair, sorry, just got some more clarification, if I can. Sure. So, at the same time, grant assessments, were done, through the selections, based on prior years, allocation. With the finalisation, of the environment levy, through the budget workshops, there was a small, unallocated amount, of the environment levy, which has been used, to increase the allocation, of those grant funds. All of the grants, been considered, as subject, to adoption, of the budget. So, if I could, through the Chair, um, make a recommendation, that the, um, recommendation, say, subject to budget. I think a small, um, through the Chair, that small wording, um, could then, facilitate, a decision. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Rather than, if necessary, that, rather than take, um, subject to, subject to, yeah, adequate budget, in the 25, 26, environmental levy.

01:14:00 Is that right? Yes. Councillor Lorentson: I'll, I'll speak to it. I'll, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak to it. Before we do, um, Councillor Wilson: Is that what I've done? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: subject to, adequate, Director Walsh: um, adequate, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: subject to, Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to it. Regardless of adding those extra words, I think the fact that we're all sitting around a table and we're all confused, uncertain, asking questions about does this circumvent process, is it transparent, I think it simply doesn't meet the PUP test. I think we have made a commitment to our community, the transparent and fair processes. I, again, single the process of this initiative. I don't think there's anyone around this table that doesn't want this initiative to go ahead, but I think we just need to understand that this is precedence setting and let's just follow due process.

01:15:00 We haven't passed the PUP test on this one, so I won't be giving it my support. Councillor Wilson: I will support this one. I believe at this stage, the reason it's complicated and confusing is because we haven't adopted the budget yet, and within the, we wouldn't have to actually increase the amount that's raised by the environment levy, we just need to reallocate funds within that levy. So, if we were to say there is a bigger budget available for the environmental grants, then the staff recommendation would be to include more initiatives. Sorry. I'm not, that's confusing, I believe it's a levy request to find some additional budget.

01:16:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Pinslip. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, look, I don't think it's about confusion, I think it's seeking clarification. Just to reiterate, the staff said that this could be reviewed in the next budget review, too. Is that correct? Is that what I heard? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think what was just said is it wouldn't need to be reviewed, because as it's said, there was a small amount of other . Councillor Finzel: Through the Chair, question to the Chair. Yes. In the past, from memory, has this issue come up before? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was thinking that I'm pretty sure I've had a projection before. Councillor Finzel: Yes, and I think this has, you know, I think we're at that same point, so I'm just wondering, how do you propose to address this, I guess? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's a good question, because I've been thinking, I think the problem we're in is that we're approving grants that haven't got any budget. All of them. Yes. Janelle Parsons: That's right.

01:17:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, probably next year, what we need to do is have a recommendation and a consideration of the value of grants before they actually go out to the community. So, we need to lock in an amount prior to the budget, because the issue here is, it's my view that, you know, just including CPI, it's going to increase the amount that they are able to maintain status quo . So, the only way to have certainty would be actually to adopt an amount earlier, like we do say for the Caravan Park piece. Councillor Finzel: And this, I guess, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, yeah. Speaker 8: Cancel it. You may. We could say subject to budget, because then it is relying on the budget that's adopted. But the question would be that it sets up, because we have a number of grants and grant opportunities, and we're going to be doing this for every grant group. Which again, falls within our process.

01:18:00 We can do that. It's a matter of, as councillors, do we want to start that process? Because again, you're right, we haven't adopted the budget, so therefore we're actually doing something without knowing exactly what the budget's going to be. And officers have been working on last year's budget, because that's the process that we currently have. So, if we put it subject to budget, then it would be up to councillors then at that point. But my fear is that it starts the ball rolling for all of the other grants that are coming to be for us. And this will happen. And where do we draw the line? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Speaker 8: That's all. That's all. So it might be something we can take back and review and look at because of this timing as you said. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: I would say that that is being different from a levy funded grant process being different from the other things you asked. Just to may well be spoke before, would this change have had the consequence

01:19:00 of changing all of the budget documents? Mayor Wilkie: Some of them. Speaker 9: Nigel? Councillor Wilson: No. Speaker 9: It's all incorporated in there. That's a quick statement. But I know that it's based on current use allocation. So there's an amount that is similar to that. Unless there was some complete divergence. Apologies. Thank you. Yeah. Unless there was a complete divergence from what has already been discussed and a reading principle at various budget workshops. Excuse me. And it would not be practicable to actually completely redo everything. No. No. Mayor Wilkie: I understand that. Can I ask a question? The extra money allocation for this grant program, would that have to be reflected in the budget documents? Speaker 9: It could be taken up in Budget Review 1. Mayor Wilkie: I'm saying if we approve this amendment, would that extra allocation need to be reflected

01:20:00 in the budget document? No. Speaker 9: No. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: That's my point. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Can I? Can I throw a question through to the Chair, maybe CEO? Would an amendment that just notes that if there is surplus, then Council will then consider the next in line in grants. Can we? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That would be a, probably a preferable option. But I think the majority can't. Councillor Lorentson: And that way we're not actually identifying the next in line in grants. We're not actually identifying what project that is. We're following due process, which is whoever's next in line that got the most points. But it also acknowledges that there may be some extra funding in the levy. And we can achieve the outcome we're seeking without the confusion. I keep going back to due process and confusion. And I think the confusion is, it's not confusion, you're right, it's more about the wording

01:21:00 that we've actually identified a project. And that may be, back to the pub test, being perceived as we're giving priority or extra favour to a particular group. But if maybe we can play with some wording, see the five minute break, Council will stop off and put some more wording together that if there is funding, once the budget has been ratified, then allocation of that goes to the next. Mayor Wilkie: Well, this amendment will have to fall. Councillor Lorentson: I mean. Councillor Finzel: Can I just raise a comment? I know like we're talking about from the now economic perspective. I just then go, we've done a whole process. When we talk about then equity for everyone that's put the time in, you know, to put their applications in, for the process, for the staff to go through. It's all robust and rigorous.

01:22:00 I just feel now with this focus on the economic and round the base. I don't know how we're going to take that into consideration with your wording or question to the chair. By to the CEO. How do you perceive that? Fairness. Speaker 8: Through process. Fairness. I think we're going to have to respond to that. I think your point is well made, Council. I think that the offices, not just in the environment, but in other levies, what we've done is work toward the budget. Janelle Parsons: Yes. Speaker 8: And you'll see that we haven't allocated full requests to some to be able to put more into the budget. So if we go down this path, then what we're doing is actually sort of destroying that

01:23:00 process, if you like. Yeah. And then we have to go back to do it. So I think as a fundamental, the issue we've got is we're allocating money based on what we think we're going to have in the budget as opposed to what we have in the budget, because of time. So I think we need to go back and actually re-look at the process in general and see whether that, rather than, if we do it one off year, it's just going to affect, potentially, those that we've allocated less monies to that we possibly might have wiped to, but because we've tried to fit more projects into the allocated budget that we have in other areas. And I get levies are different to our grant funding, but it's still a process and the principles are the same. Mayor Wilkie: Question, probably to staff, if, or Mr Chair, would there be, if we were to do this process, would there be a capacity to fit in other people on the priority list here as well? Where would it stop? How much? Where would you stop?

01:24:00 Because there are other worthy projects on this list as well. Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the question to me is, so my understanding is there is about $10,000 that is available. This project's $9,340. It's chosen because it's the third highest ranked. That's the status. So people put in, generally you're ranked from top down. The CEO's right. There has been, I think, a little change off the top two applications. Whether that would be fair to Tewantin is another consideration. Mayor Wilkie: It's the, so it's the amount that's available, left over, could accommodate this third priority, but not the fourth. Councillor Finzel: If the budget's right. Mayor Wilkie: If the budget's right. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Finzel: And if the process is fair. Yeah. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Well, Mr Chair, can we deal with this amendment? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll close. I accept all the concerns of councils. To my, in my defence, I suggested it both at the workshop on grants and on the two budget

01:25:00 sessions where we've done the environment. Maybe it's not a surprise. I think we do need to increase the level of funding to these projects. I think this third rate project is a key initiative to start what is incredibly important work on the North Shore. I think we need to increase the level of funding. The extreme weather events that we are having and are predicted to have more of, I don't think there is a need to be overly cautious such that we have over a one year delay in increasing money for grants. I believe it's Council's role to determine how much money they want to put into grants. Having said that, I acknowledge that there could be a term of approach which would then allow staff to use any excess budget that is in there. I'll move the motion. Those in favour? Those against? Oh that was Councillor Wilson and Councillor Stockwell I believe. Those against are Lawrence and Phillips, Wilkie, Finzel and Wegener.

01:26:00 Considering the amount of time, I'm not going to move a subsequent amendment. We can do that with Project Review 2 or something else. Thank you Mr Chair. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Mr Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. We now need someone, oh it goes back to the original motion. Councillor Wilson: So on the flip side of this, of the discussion we just had, just want to clarify Councillor's role in this process. So we do have workshops where we're presenting grants. We've presented with this, the rankings and the recommendations. And if we've made comment at the time or asked questions about which have been recommended. So the other side, one can I add more in, is to say I don't agree with that being funded.

01:27:00 Then that isn't really our role to say that. So then when we do get to a decision making meeting. Where that role kind of sits is if you, we're not involved in the actual process in selecting which projects should be funded. And so then if you don't actually agree with that determination, what is our process funded? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So. Speaker 8: That was a question. That was a very short question. Well it's probably more the directors. Directors. To respond to this. Yes. Yes. Speaker 3: Thank you councillors. Through the chair. Ultimately we have grants that have different delegated authority. So some of the authority is delegated to staff. So in the economic grants that's delegated to staff. There are some grants and as per the policy, it's councillors making the decision about those grants which may be funded or not funded.

01:28:00 So ultimately the ones that are delegated to staff are the grants that are delegated to you. You can make a decision around whether or not to fund them. What the staff bring to you is the end result of their process. Which in all the cases of our grants is a meticulously assessed and scored process. And they recommend the ones that have scored the highest above the threshold of funding. So they set the funding as per what is allocated in the draft. And you'll see in the community grants ones, they say subject to sufficient funds being allocated in the 25-26 budget. And should there be a situation between now and budget time when you, if you change your view, then staff would address that out the other side by either increasing or reducing

01:29:00 the funds. But ultimately it is your decision to decide whether or not to fund them. So you take the staff's recommendations through their considered process. And then it's on the table for you as councillors to then decide around whether or not you would fund and what fund a particular application. And the staff are here to answer the questions about their assessment of those particular grants. Mayor Wilkie: I'll speak to the motion, Mr Chair. There are a lot of worthy projects. The two that were selected for funding, Teewah Landowners Associate, the Turtle Trackers Monitoring Conservation Initiative. It's improving monitoring, reducing human impacts, increasing community awareness, contribute to turtle conservation on the North Shore.

01:30:00 Includes acoustic monitoring, motion activation cameras, GPS data loggers. Mesh netting, sand temperature sensors, signage and training for volunteers at Mon Repos for the key volunteers. We know that the North Shore is a key area for turtle hatching. It is challenged up there because of the amount of vehicles on the beach. So anything we can do to assist those creatures on the North Shore and the work of the volunteers that are nurturing them is fantastic. And also Wildlife Noosa. This is a volunteer group. And the money is to train, for training and equipment for the volunteers to undertake expanding the scope of rescues. And that means all sorts of wildlife across Noosa on the land and in the river and at sea. They do an amazing work. Mostly volunteer and largely self-funded, I understand. So congratulations for putting those two at the top.

01:31:00 They're excellent recipients. And do extremely valuable work. And if we were to expand the amount of money available for the environmental levy projects, I'd like to see certainly Wildlife Noosa receive more. Thank you for your assessment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Can I ask a question? Can I ask a question too? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I ask a question? Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you. Can I ask a question? Can I ask a question? Yes. I feel really uncomfortable about being here because, you know, I think we need a review of what we're doing to ensure that what we're bringing to the table after everyone does all this work, our external community, our internal staff and the councillors. You know, I think in 2025, we do need to be rigorous and have a contemporary review of

01:32:00 Mayor Wilkie: what... Councillor Finzel: Well, I think I'm allowed to... Mayor Wilkie: I'll make my point of order. Excuse me. Councillor Finzel: You interrupted through the chair. Mayor Wilkie: Follow the process. I'll make my point of order. All right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So get your point of order in. Mayor Wilkie: Point of order, Mr Chair. With respect, Councillor Finzel is talking about a review of the whole process, whereas the motion before us is about the climate change resilience grants and the environment grants. And our debate needs to be restricted to that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We are deciding grants, but I think Councillor Finzel started by saying she was uncomfortable about being in this position. So I do... I think refining targets to how that affects your decision is appropriate. I understand where Councillor Wilkie's coming from, but if you can just take that on board, Councillor. We're not here to talk about the process of the grants program. We're here about how to... We're here about how to make this decision in front of us. So I don't think I'm going to say the point of order is correct, but we'll actually just

01:33:00 refine that to how that influences your decisions today. Councillor Finzel: I support the merits of assessments and the weighting and the rigorous process. In the past, the grants before us for decision-making today and now have, in my opinion, been impacted by the impact of the climate change resilience grants. So I think it's important that we have a process that falls short in meeting the expectations of these grants to deliver equity to beneficiaries. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Thank you. Other councillors? I'll speak. I think the great thing is that the number of high quality applications we've received. And it's unfortunate that not all of them can be funded, and that's always a key issue with most grants. We've had a number of grant processes that good quality applications haven't got budget.

01:34:00 We haven't talked much about the climate change response grants. We've also had a considerable volume of great community effort proposed. The issue we're dealing with, I think, is one that is about process, and that's about the uncertainty of an ultimate budget. And I think we'll need to deal with that at some stage in the process. I think the issue for council, I guess, is here we have projects that are really getting on-ground action, and it's that balance that we will need to place in the future between how much we allocate for grants, versus how much we allocate for reserve management, versus how much we allocate for buying future land. Because as the impacts of extreme weather events and sea level rise and other climate

01:35:00 change happens, it may be it's more important to take urgent on-the-ground action than it is to take strategic protection. But that's something for a later date. So I support all those groups that are getting the money. And I think, you know, from memory, this might be the first time that we've had staff put a public report to rank of applications. And I think that's something that we need to do. And I think that's actually a great step forward. So we can see where we are if councils make the decision to increase the budget. Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Wegener? Councillor Wegener: Did you move it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I thought it had already been moved. So I moved to amend it. Councillor Wilson: I moved it, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It was councillor Lorentson and then Perkins? Yeah. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: So didn't you move it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I moved to amend it. Councillor Wegener: Oh, okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No problem. You didn't vote for me, remember? Yes. Mayor Wilkie: I know you won't forget. Councillor Wegener: Just noticing how many fantastic opportunities have been lost due to lack of funding.

01:36:00 I would urge all of us again to put more money into this bucket, other buckets, but when it comes to grant funding, but especially the environment levy for next year. Because Noosa is, can be seen as a giant garden. And it's a beautiful garden. But bloody hell, gardens are expensive. They take a lot of maintenance to maintain the standard or else you lose it. So I think it's really important for us to not only continue to buy properties, which are very important, critical for our wildlife corridors, but also maintain the properties that we have in our reserves. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else? Anyone else? Councillor Toomey? Councillor Lorentson: I will. I'm just going to just summarise, I think, what's been said. Around this table, something, a great process that was supposed to be almost a tick and flick ended up in quite a bit of conversation. I think what the take home for me is we don't erode process.

01:37:00 That if we are looking at making changes or there's gaps, then we do it properly. We go to the policy first. We look at the levy. Maybe we do introduce an urgent response applications so that, you know, groups like this don't have to wait a year to get the levy. But I think, again, this is a big organisation and we have to have fair and transparent processes. We owe that to our community. And it's also legislated. That's what we're supposed to do as a council, our size. So great take homes. And I think we've all learned quite a bit. But a review of policy, I think, is probably the next step. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Good. The notice has been made. And those in favour? And those against? Sorry. I better read that. In favour was Lawrence and Phillips, Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener and Stockwell. And against was Councillor Wilson.

01:38:00 It has been an hour and 40 minutes, are we ready to take 5 minutes?

01:51:00 Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Director Walsh: You might note that Dean Arnold, the project manager, is not in attendance. He's on extended leave overseas, so we're standing in for him rather than waiting for his return to present the report. Noosaville Foreshore is a beautiful and popular location for residents and visitors. It's where the coast and the suburbs and the hinterland come together and enjoy each other's company and promenade, launch boats, stroll, picnic and swim against the stunning backdrop of the river and this hinterland.

7.1 NOOSAVILLE FORESHORE INFRASTRUCTURE MASTERPLAN (Referred from Services and Organisation Committee Meeting dated 10 June 2025 - Item 7.2) ¶

▶ 01:51:22· Carried 5-2 · 7 divisions from council's minutes

01:52:00 However, it's experiencing challenges from ageing infrastructure, tidal inundation and river flooding and erosion, as well as increasing visitation. The infrastructure master planning process over the last two years has been very important to establish a shared vision for the space of the community. So we ensure required infrastructure replacement meets the mark and meets climate challenges. A master plan is also fundamental to attract funding from the state and federal government as a sign of broad community support and a student investment for their funds. The first iteration of the draft plan, which was released in June, is going to be a very important one. The design approach was too overtly modern and the community had no appetite to relocate car parking spaces to liberate green space and achieve better cycling lanes. The second iteration of the plan, released in November last year, has largely met community expectations with a softer, more responsive design, embracing Noosa character that also provides sound direction for infrastructure replacement.

01:53:00 A key focus for the finalisation of the plan has been significant community engagement, including one-on-one conversations, pop-ups, meetings, as well as the display on Council's website and media channels, that has indicated significant community support for the modified approach. I'll hand over to Aidan to briefly discuss infrastructure planning aspects of the plan and then I'll hand over to Sian to discuss climate resilience. Speaker 1: Aidan. Thanks, Shaun. So, the Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan. It will provide a clear direction for asset renewal in the future. It will allow Council to strategically renew infrastructure, such as pathways, shelters, furniture, lighting and revertment walls, in line with the 20-year vision. Council has successfully received grant funding for the Quota Park Changing Places facility through the SEQ CSP allocated funding program at a value of $1.8 million, so that's 100% funded by the state.

01:54:00 The draft master plan has also formed the basis of Council's application for DRF funding for revertment wall renewal. This is leveraging Council's existing asset renewal budget and, if successful, will be 50-50 funded through the state. Council is also investigating further grant opportunities, such as growing regions for playground renewals, such as the Pirate Park playground. Speaker 4: With regard to foreshore resilience, the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan identified Noosaville foreshore as at high risk to future permanent inundation due to sea level rise, as well as erosion and storm-tide inundation. Council was successful in receiving $100,000 of grant funding from the State Department of Environment, Science, Tourism and Innovation, as well as LGAQ, to undertake a successful study on foreshore resilience options through the PewCoast 2100 program.

01:55:00 This project was integrated into the foreshore infrastructure master plan. The project set out to address three primary challenges. Foreshore erosion, foreshore inundation due to sea level rise, and extreme heat, which are projected to increase in the future due to climate change. We work with expert river catchment consultants and partner with the University of Sunshine Coast to develop solutions that complement and enhance the existing Noosa-wide natural character. Improving ecological and environmental sustainability of the foreshore, at the same time as improving resilience to growing risks. Through the project, we deployed micro-climate sensors in the foreshore, undertook urban heat island modeling, analyzed the existing site context and projected impacts, assessed nature-based foreshore and shoreline options through a multi-criteria analysis, developed a 12D foreshore model, and developed concept designs that can be taken forward for future detailed design projects. This has led to a set of design responses that are in keeping with the natural Noosa look and feel by using nature-based solutions, cool refuge areas with large shade trees and

01:56:00 cool breezes, and non-intrusive innovative and living foreshores to ensure the future resilience of this critical community space to tidal inundation, heat waves, and erosion in the future. It should be noted that these solutions should also help with other hazards, such as riverine flooding and storm-tide inundation, such as that which we experienced in the recent ex-tropical cyclone Alfreda. Thank you. Director Walsh: So that's our summary. And we just wanted to thank everyone for their interest in the plan and the passionate community representations we also received to get a much further plan. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Questions? I think I saw Council Order. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, thank you. Disability advocates have had input into this plan. Can you talk us through some of their key areas of interest and input, please? Director Walsh: Yes. So they were involved in a number of one-on-one stakeholder meetings, so representatives. We don't have a peer disability, you know, group in the Shire. So we targeted a number of carers who actually take people out on the foreshore regularly,

01:57:00 both to access the foreshore as well as use watercraft. And their key feedback was, firstly, they're very appreciative of the car park coming back, so that's, to be honest, it actually makes it a lot easier for them to drop off and pick up people. They sought, you know, wide, graded, smooth paths to actually make it easier for people to move around. They're also very appreciative of the Changing Places facility and also the opportunities to improve our launching facilities for disabled people who might want to get out on the water, associated with any of the boat ramp or recreation area upgrades. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Finzel, you had a question? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Thank you. Thank you for your report, staff. To help inform the community and iron out just some gaps perhaps in their knowledge, I'm just going to ask through the Chair, what is the purpose of a master plan and how it works to inform the next 20 years? Director Walsh: So a master plan sets, if you like, a strategic framework about how we approach our joint

01:58:00 investment in the space and manage it for the future and tries to forecast the changes that are coming. And also align with funding opportunities that might arise as well. So if you like, it's not a detailed construction plan, it sets a framework and the words are just as important as the visual graphics, so about setting that framework. And in any part of a master plan, it always is followed by very detailed, you know, concept design for each precinct or each area as funding becomes available. And it's very usual that as part of that subsequent stage, there's ongoing budget consideration, ongoing consideration of design challenges specific to that space. And also consideration of community engagement, because expectations can sometimes change. So that's a natural progression from the master plan through the concept. And that's actually articulated in the master plan under page 35 about the next steps. And it also referenced page five of the master plan where it talks about the purpose of the master plan, basically articulating that I've already described.

01:59:00 Councillor Finzel: Just to follow on from that, I know you mentioned that in the master plan, but just to reiterate, once it's ratified, what's the opportunity for the community to remain on the journey? And how will they be meaningfully engaged over the life of the 20 year master plan to give them opportunity? Director Walsh: So, thank you, councillor. So for instance, one of the first projects that we're ready to roll with is the design of the changing places facility or the disabled, you know, toilet blocks in Quota Park or near the big pelican. And so we'll actually, again, you know, have a series of workshops with councillors to ensure that we're on the right track. We'll undertake engagement both with local businesses in that area, as well as post that through normal, you know, engagement programs to make sure that we're on the mark. And of course, you know, particular stakeholders such as disability sectors will make them very aware of the proposal to make sure that they have a very clear view on whether we're

02:00:00 approaching it correctly. Thank you. And that is the process that will follow for any upgrade that will occur along the foreshore. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Director Walsh: James Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Sort of following on from that as well, so could you please explain between the master plan and the design phase, where the master plan has been quite specific in terms of things like pathways with a number of parking spaces and things, where, I suppose, when is the point of no return? Like when does that actually get locked in or is there time to revisit that at the design phase? Yeah. Director Walsh: Again, as articulated on page 35 of the master plan, it could all, it could actually have further refinement. So, because stakeholder expectations could change. They might want to go to a six metre wide path, and I'm just saying that, you know, as an example, for a particular location because of specific issues where you might have multiple, you know, vehicles coming together. Or it might be that a particular business actually wants to relinquish a car parking space to encourage outdoor dining. So, it gets locked in at that concept design phase that then goes to detailed design documentation

02:01:00 to allow construction to happen. So, it's a long way between what's in the master plan now and what we'll end up seeing on the ground. And if you, for instance, compare the master plan that was prepared for the Corrie Lyle Mill site, you know, 20 years ago, and you see the way it's executed on the ground, the principles are there. There's a library. You know, there's a playground. There's a major re-vegetation of the creek. And there's also restoration of a major heritage facility. But the nuances change quite significantly through that process as a result of ongoing engagement. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of the recent community consultation process, will the community feedback received since the release of the revised plan, would that be, you know, in terms of the community feedback made publicly available? And probably what I really want to ask is, will you also analyse the new feedback?

02:02:00 What changes were made as a direct result of the community feedback during the most recent consultation process? Director Walsh: So, the answer to the question is that we'll, of course, where people have made submissions and written specific letters, they'll be getting a specific response back. And, of course, we can try and tailor that to the maximum extent about what changes we have made. So, to the draft plan as a result of their submissions. So, it's not saying that they have to be clear that we will always agree with this, you know, what they've said, but we'll actually let them know what the outcome of the Council's decision was. Councillor Lorentson: But in terms of a summation or just an opportunity for the community to have access to that feedback, will that be made publicly available on our website? Director Walsh: So, we didn't release the community survey detailed results previously as part of the previous plan.

02:03:00 But we can certainly release a significant executive summary about what the key themes were. And that's some good feedback. I'm very happy to take that on board. So, as well as the specific correspondence going out to the individuals. I think it's fair, a request that we actually put on the website, an overview of how we have actually responded to the various feedback. Councillor Lorentson: That would be great. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Question please, Shaun. Just something that I sort of struggle with a little bit when we look at a 20 year master plan is when I see reference to key studies that inform it. And it's something that when I look at, say, the Noosa River Blood Study Upgrade Volume 4 being 2017, and then a future title, Inundation Mapping 2018. I think, you know, from my perspective. From my questions at the S&O, I really just need to understand a little bit more around how we look 20 years ahead, but we're relying on quite older policies from Council or from.

02:04:00 So, can you just help me understand that will those be updated throughout the process as well? And the outcomes from that, will that also form detailed design? Director Walsh: Yes. So, firstly, sometimes you do have to make a punt on forecasting for the future. And if I give an example of what happened after the significant river flood in 1992, the Shire planner here in Noosa at that time, without any support from a major flood study or without support from the state planning policy, introduced a minimum floor level across Noosaville of 2.1 metres, a habitable floor level, on the basis of common sense. And luckily, following that establishing that flood level, we had all the modern townhouses, and housing development occur in Noosaville. And so, by and large, our floor levels are actually above the flood levels. And we're very, very fortunate that that planning process, on the basis of information to date, you know, set a direction for the future and made us very resilient. But in the, as a result of new information being presented over the years, that minimum

02:05:00 floor level is now at 2.4 metres as a result of further refinement of flood level. So at every time we go and do a detailed concept of a particular site, whether it's a playground or whether it's like, we'll actually be re-evaluating the most contemporary information available and updating it. That's good professional practice that Council has definitely implemented in the past. Speaker 4: Shaun, did you want to add anything to that? That was a very good summary. Thank you, Shaun. With regard to those specific studies, that's the best available information we have at this time. We are updating both of them, though. So as soon as that new information becomes available, aligned with best practice and more accurate localised data collection, we will update what we've suggested to ensure that the local area application, the construction is done with the best available information. So that, again, feeds into detailed design process. The high level strategy is set now, but the detailed design process will take in the best available updated information once it becomes available.

02:06:00 So we are updating our flood studies. We are developing a new overland flow model for the area. So we're working on it. Councillor Phillips: And just a quick follow-up question. Will those all come back for a report to Council? Director Walsh: Well, every time Council develops a new strategy or has a new technical report, you know, that's very common practice that, of course, we report it through workshops. Sometimes it might be a briefing for your information. At other times, it might require a Council resolution because it's changing a particular practice, like, you know, a new flood level or what. So, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. The total project cost is $559,401, including $100,000 that was provided by the Queensland Government through QCoast 2100 to develop the concepts that have been now integrated into the master plan. In terms of the detailed designs, will there be any changes? Will there be additional cost for further consultation and the preparation of detailed design

02:07:00 beyond these initial concepts? And how and when will the community be informed about progress, especially regarding any additional consultation costs or design phases? Director Walsh: Well, firstly, of course, there will be additional costs associated with detailed design. So that's part of the course of applying, you know, the most recent standards and the like. And, you know, as you're well aware, we have a really well-established, you know, community engagement program that we plot out with the Councillors in terms of the coming months. And then Councillors and fellow staff recommend the way we engage with the community and using various different approaches. So, yeah, certainly that will be part and parcel of any new program. It's very difficult to roadmap how you go forth with that because, you know, we're really wanting this master plan to actually be opportunistic to make available for federal funding and state funding. And we're not in control of the way federal and the state, you know, distribute their money.

02:08:00 Sometimes they've got a real flavour associated with, you know, climate resilience and coastal protection. Other years they might have a flavour on playgrounds. So, you know, we basically capitalise on what their theme or their, you know, strategy is at any given moment. And then launch or jump onto that to actually make the best opportunity, the funding levels that are coming from various, you know, state and federal agencies. So, and it really, in terms of the budget that we set, it really depends on the extent of what Council wants to achieve in the space. You know, do they want to achieve a very large playground or a modest playground? Does it want to achieve it with really complex, you know, all abilities playground equipment, which can be very expensive? And then also what level of community engagement we want. So, I'd say it's really up to Councillors to decide the appropriate budgets and the appropriate budgets required for community engagement. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any other questions? Councillor Phillips: Yes, please. Thanks. Just in reference, there's 29 drainage outfalls that have been identified in the plan that

02:09:00 need infrastructure. Or that says... I'm referring to tidal inundation backflows due to the 29 drainage outfalls and two drainage channels to the river. One thing that I, and I just maybe need a little bit of help finding, reference in the plan to when they would be prioritised. Because I can see, I think it's called natural... Channel design. Thank you. Director Walsh: And gross pollutant traps at the end. Councillor Phillips: Yes, I can see that in there, but I can't see the 29 identified infrastructure on the priority list. Yes. Director Walsh: All of the stormwater infrastructure along the Gympie Terrace foreshore is coming close to end of life. So, we're already beyond what we'd perceived to be a reasonable life of infrastructure. We've got particular problems with pipes around Thomas Street, near where the public boat ramp is, and where the pits are, and also with corrosion in the pipes.

02:10:00 That's one area we're particularly concerned about. So, on the back of this master plan, what we'll be trying to do is actually leverage off our renewal funding, which replaces life for life. We're trying to see what grant funding we can get from state and federal processes to double our money. So, that's a key aspect. And then by getting better money, we can achieve bigger stormwater pipes, because our renewal budget only covers, you know, to replace life for life. So, we can achieve bigger stormwater pipes to get the stormwater away more quickly. So, we can actually get the stormwater out of the water, and also gross pollutant traps to actually catch rubbish before it actually goes out into the river, which is our premier aspect. So, but the key thing, especially over stormwater, is you try and do it before you muck up again, you know, because you need to make a terrible mess to lay pipes. So, you do it first, and then you come back, and then you do the surface landscaping, pathways, and playgrounds. So, I dare say that the first priority we would do with stormwater is to make sure that the stormwater around the Changing Places facility is up to scratch, so we don't have to come

02:11:00 back and do it again. The next change to stormwater we would look at, if we have a successful funding application for the revetment walls, which is in with the state government at the moment, then we'd make sure the stormwater is up to scratch for that. So, it'll really depend on where we're doing works, and we need to make sure the stormwater is upgraded prior to the major works demensing or at the same time as part of it. So, again, it gets back to that opportunistic responding to when the funding becomes available. If Council, you know, wanted to release a significant amount of money for us to self-fund stormwater as much as possible, I'd love to see the rectification of the drain that runs along Mill Street, you know, where there's near the slipway, because we all know it's not the best image of Noosa Shire, having, you know, pollutants running down that area, and it doesn't really reflect our natural aspirations. And there's a lot of really good design parameters that can actually balance operational needs like car parking with, you know, good resilient design, as well as achieving really sound environmental drainage outcomes. So, that would be my personal priority, to really daylight it, but it really depends

02:12:00 on the funding available. Councillor Phillips: Do you have a follow-up question, unless? No, I can. Yeah. Thank you. In the draft 80% from June 2024, I referenced that there was a recommendation that went to community on a reference of three metre pathways. I'm struggling a little bit to find in the plan that came to the special meeting in November or the one that I'm currently seeing now of any reference to the metre of pathways that's going to be suggested. And my second question to follow that up is how a community then consulted if the original 80% said three, and now there's a suggestion of 3.5. Director Walsh: Yeah. So, I need to take that on notice exactly where the 3.5 metres is referenced in the plan. I don't know that off the top of my head. So, but the reports that have come to Council is that we've had two types of consultation,

02:13:00 or two types of findings. Like, there were 17 submissions from 162 USA submissions. So, as an example. But then I think we have 40 submissions saying that we need to better deal with the conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists. So, on the pathway. And you note that the change from the June 2024 report through to November 2024 report. Remember the June design actually put the cyclists on the road, or on a dedicated way. And that was the impetus to remove car parking. So, by almost changing track and putting the car parking there, that was the impetus to put the cyclists on the back. We've lost capacity to consider cyclists on a separate route. And we're having to push, you know, recreational cyclists back on the pathway. So, it's essentially a staff recommendation that to try and marry all of these competing factors, it seems wise to increase, you know, the shared pathway width from the bare minimum of three metres up to 3.5, which is consistent with the, more consistent with the OSRO standard.

02:14:00 Speaker 1: Did you want to add anything to that? Yeah. I think, you know, following the feedback that was increased. The feedback from the community, and then staff review, was that it would be increased to 3.5 at a minimum. And some of the feedback that we received was that, no, we should be separating bike riders from cyclists, from walkers and people walking their dogs and that sort of thing. So, we should have a separated cycle track off-road and a pathway, which meant a two metre pathway and up to a three and a half metre pathway. This is separate from your on-road cycle lanes. We didn't have the space for that. And the feedback from the community was that we didn't want a five lane highway through there. So, a compromise of 3.5 metres was adopted. And my understanding is that 3.5 metres has been kept consistent since that decision,

02:15:00 following the feedback from the 80% plan. Director Walsh: But it's a fair statement to say that it's consistent. With that previous discussion we had, that this can be the first time we have some money to upgrade, you know, a pathway. We can look at the exact circumstances of the users in that location and determine the best width for that location. It could be that where the split pathway is split, for instance, which is where we have room on the western end of the foreshore, we might be able to narrow the shared path down to a more smaller standard. But where we've got the combined pathways, we don't have any room up on the eastern ends of it. We might need to really have a good think about what are the community expectations of the path at that location. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. In the new plan that we see today, there is, what I can see is, what do we call the green, when the green part, the cycleway has been extended the whole way now on that new plan though that we see today. So there is consistency now about a cycle lane.

02:16:00 On the road. On the road cycle lane. Director Walsh: On the road. Which is still shared with vehicle traffic. Councillor Phillips: Yep. Director Walsh: The difference with the June 2024 plan, the, you know, overtly modern one, is it provided a dedicated two-way cycle route or, you know, which is separate to the road traffic. So it's a very, very different approach. Councillor Phillips: I only have one more question just around modelling then. Is there going to be, before any of the pathway upgrade, some modelling around how the use is? So there's data for the councillors around the table to see evidence-based decision of how many pedestrians, how many cyclists. My understanding is, you know, someone doing over 30 kilometres an hour is probably going to go on the road. And my kids, who aren't going to trip somewhere over, they're pretty good cyclists. But they're probably going to stick to the footpath. So capturing data that gives councillors the understanding of who is actually using the

02:17:00 foreshore for cycling as opposed to who's actually cycling to commute to work or, because I see it very different and so does TMR around the, someone that's cycling and someone that's recreational cycling. Director Walsh: Yeah. I think that's a fair request to actually, you know, do some modelling around that. And we've done some more, do detailed survey counts to understand the mix. And you're right, the pathway that we have through the parklands is ideally for slow speed recreational users who are really having regard to the other users on the path, whether it's pedestrians or whether it's disabled people. And encouraging the faster cyclists to use the green lane on the adjacent road. So we can't always control what cyclists do though. So, you know, how we manage that. So I think that's a fair request to undertake detailed survey counts to better understand the nature of the first design. What do you think, Adam? Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree. And I think it's important just to consider the different types of bike riders.

02:18:00 So we've got cyclists who are performance or sport cyclists who will stick to the road no matter the condition. And then we've got the crowd that we're sort of aiming for, which is the people who are interested in riding a bike but don't feel safe to do so at the moment. So we want to get them on a bike rather than driving a car. So improving cycle lanes so that they feel safer. And that's about interaction with parked cars and door ring zones. But then also providing off-road facilities where we can so that people can ride slower with their children. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks. Speaker 9: Barry, you've got a question? Mayor Wilkie: The point where the two paths west of the boat ramp converge near the boat ramp, where they're trying to accommodate people walking dogs, cyclists, pedestrians, people on scooters, e-bikes, and just runners. They converge near the boat ramp, which is, would that considered a high use recreational

02:19:00 area? Would this be considered a high use recreational park? Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. The whole of the foreshore is mapped on how we're walking. And cycling strategy as a principal recreational route. Mayor Wilkie: And is that why under AusRoad's guide to road design, they say the 3.5 metres is the desirable width for shared paths in high recreational areas. That's their recommendation for safety and inclusion in high use recreational areas? Is that, have you taken that as, what weight have you given to that? Director Walsh: Well, I think that's our, that's why our recommendation is for 3.5 metres. I think that's table 5.3 in, that's 6a of the, you know, the guidelines. So, because when you go through that full, you know, AusRoad standard, it goes into a lot of detailing about the path required for pedestrians, people in wheelchairs, for people in bicycles. And so we're happy to take that as a, as a really appropriate standard.

02:20:00 I think under that same table, they actually give a range of figures, which might even go between, wider than that. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: I'm happy to move the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilkie can move it. Have you got a seconder? Mayor Wilkie: We can still have questions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconded Councillor Wegener. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. The final draft of the Noosaville foreshore master plan, presenting an adaptable 20 year vision, has responded to feedback from over a thousand residents, and as promised, has shaped a different plan than that presented in June 2024. Sorry. There's a motion that I prepared earlier, which takes on board some of the discussion around the table, and makes the point that it's an evolving 20 year plan.

02:21:00 Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just before you do, because that wasn't enough, Councillor Whittier, are you still happy to second that motion that's now on the screen for us? Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep. Mayor Wilkie: So the change to the original staff recommendation is, note that each stage of subsequent delivery of the master plan will be subject to detailed design refinement, taking guidance from the endorsed master plan, will be subject to ongoing community consultation, including key stakeholders, to ensure the most appropriate detailed design response as the community evolves over the next 20 years. It's a very different plan than what was presented in June 24. Approaches to car parking, the tennis court, playgrounds, boating, public amenities, pathways, and riverbank erosion have been refined to align with community feedback. It was earnestly hoped our community would see their feedback reflected in this revised draft plan, and that they felt it was a worthwhile process. Many of the ideas received significantly improve on the first draft, such as leaving Pirate

02:22:00 Park in its current location, and including not replacing it with a natural play area. Like not replacing the tennis court, but increasing public use of it, while upgrading it over time into a multi-use court, possibly also for basketball and picket ball. Instead of removing pedestrian safe routes, instead of improving pedestrians and cycling safely through two separate paths, the length of Gympie Terrace, which would have involved removing on-road parking, in the narrower strip of parkland east of the Thomas Street boat ramp, it's been proposed to achieve a similar result by having one wider shared footpath in the narrower sections. Disability advocates have been consulted and are looking forward to the wider shared pathway. According to the AusRoads Guide to Road Design, page 29, it recommends 3.5 million people per meter is a desirable width for shared paths in high-use recreational areas, which is, as we heard, defines the Gympie Terrace foreshore.

02:23:00 The layout of the Thomas Street boat ramp is to remain untouched, but in order to fit a wider, safer, more inclusive and compliant treeline path around the boat ramp in this narrow section, it's proposed to convert 10 car parks to 18 motorcycle or scooter parks. This draft makes it clear that views to the river will not be the same as they were in the past, and that there will be gentle slopes planted with grass to the water's edge in well-used areas, and low plantings in other areas to beautify and help protect against erosion. The boardwalk proposed to be built over the rock wall at the eastern end of Gympie Terrace is now proposed to end at Howard Street, instead of continuing along to Williams Street as originally drafted. This shortening is in response to residents' concerns about impacts on amenity. A proposed wider footpath between Howard and Williams Street is intended to enable safer and more inclusive pedestrian access.

02:24:00 On-street parking is proposed to be flipped to the other side of the road to allow this to occur. Along with community members who took the time to respond, I'd like to commend all councillors and the key staff who have worked in good faith to listen to the community's concerns about aesthetics, access and safety to help draft this final plan. As page 35 of the master plan makes clear, the implementation approach is flexible and able to change based on the community's evolving needs and available funding avenues. The strategies are flexible, adaptable and staged so they can respond over time to changing weather, erosion, natural influences and shifts in community values. As each project progresses through its planning and design phase, the community will have opportunities to actively shift and improve. This plan will enable Council to apply for the $10 million-plus in external funding needed for the upkeep and improvements on this 2-metre-long strip of parkland so it can continue to be

02:25:00 enjoyed for generations to come, despite predicted increases in storm intensity and frequency, heavier recreational use and increased wear and tear on the infrastructure. And in fact, as you've seen, we've already been able to apply for $1.8 million for the change in places facility and potentially another $3.25 million for the revetment wards. The Noosa community is rich in knowledge and good ideas. Combined with the technical expertise with our staff, they've helped create a shared vision for the foreshore we all can be proud of. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Question? Please, this might help with Mayor Wilkie's statement. To clarify, in the guidelines, the definition of recreational pathway actually only applies once data is collected about the usage and volume of cyclists. Can I just confirm if that's correct? Speaker 1: So is that from Austroads or TMR Supplement? Councillor Phillips: Well, both of them suggest that in order to suggest a recreational definition, the data

02:26:00 has to support that, which we don't have. Speaker 1: So we've identified it as a principal recreational route to the walking and cycling strategy back in 2020, which looked at the whole Shire. So it's on one of our, the principal cycle network route, so in the coastal pathway route, which extends from Tewantin to Noosaheads down to Bridgian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the code was not just us, it's also the state that's identified that? That's correct. Yeah. Councillor Warranty? Councillor Lorentson: Just questions around car parking. So services and organisation meeting, it was noted that there was only a loss of 10 car parks. And you referred solely to the boat ramp area. Over the last few days, I've been discussing a meeting with residents who have just raised some inconsistencies. So I just want to throw a couple of questions at you, if that's okay.

02:27:00 In terms of, and I might go through just section by section. So Eli Park, Mass Outs, Slipway area. In terms of, and I might go through just section by section. Can you confirm whether the redesign reduces available parking from 17 vehicle spaces and five motorcycle school bays down to just 11 on-street car parks? And I think the calculations were done by combining off-street and on-street spaces. So probably the question I really want to ask is that, whether unmarked parking spaces or un-designated car parking spaces were taken into account when you were doing your parking analysis and when you discussed net losses or net gains? Director Walsh: So I'll just step through that process.

02:28:00 So the November of 2024 plan that was presented to Council, the endorsement of community consultation, pretty well maintained the status quo at the Mass Outs Slipway in terms of the loading arrangements and parking arrangements. And the adjacent on-street car parking spaces. In the process of engagement, there were issues raised about lack of separation between the slipway and the pathway. And concerns for environmental nuisance and safety of the public about that interface. In discussions with the operators, it was proposed to actually flip the car parking arrangements to actually convert the on-street car parking spaces to actually replace the car parking spaces in the park with still retention of a limited loading zone adjacent to it. And that's what's in the plan that's shown with you today. You know, there is an issue in that space is we do have cars in a sort of fairly uncontrolled

02:29:00 manner, you know, using the green space to actually park there. So, you know, the notion about whether we accounted for informal versus formal is a bit awkward because there's probably a fair bit of informal car parking occurring in really, really valuable green space. So the recommendation is to, you know, to change the arrangements there with a focus on the public car parking spaces being accessed immediately off Gympie Terrace with the number of spaces and loading arrangements adjacent to the slipway. It will be subject to detailed design. But I will note that this morning I was contacted by two of the operators and upon further reflection, despite those conversations at the start, they would like the plan to reflect what was previously put out to the public in November 2024. So I just wanted to note that. They think that that informal arrangement suits them better. But I just want to note that the Council staff recommendation still stays is because we have a conflict issue that we're dealing with at the slipway, the Masood slipway, you know,

02:30:00 which is we have people sanding and grinding boats and the like, and we have our public, you know, walking very close to that. And if we want to maintain living heritage at that site, we've got an obligation to actually separate those uses a bit better. And we also have an obligation to ensure our valuable green space, which is very narrow down that end of the river, you know, is actually protected from vehicle intrusion in the longer term. Because one of the things that, you know, that people have always said is the value of this green space. We want more green space if we can get it. So what's the balance, you know, in this site? So our staff recommendation, as contained in the report presented to you today, we think is the best outcome. Councillor Lorentson: So has a precinct wide audit before and after parking summary, has that been undertaken precinct wide that actually looked at loading bays, delivery bays, unmarked, undesignated

02:31:00 car parking sites? Director Walsh: So generally, yes, but this is again a schematic. And you'll note that councillors, we've been working through a parking management plan with the councillors. And that will, you know, ideally come out to the public later this year. And that goes into a lot more detail about time restrictions on parking, provision of loading spaces, provision of disabled spaces in a much more granular detail. And we'll be able to take on the feedback from this plan, especially, you know, inform that drive master plan. But there has been an overview of the whole spaces. We're confident that the only places that we're losing car parking spaces, as articulated to you, is alongside the municipal program. Councillor Lorentson: Thomas Street. I note that the, in the final round of community consultation by the Your Say survey, there was a question asked about car parking on Thomas Street. And I think from memory, it asked the respondents whether they supported the loss of few car

02:32:00 parks and gave a number up to two. What was the response numbers? And where can we find that information? Director Walsh: So that was distributed in the consultation report that was previously distributed to the councillors. So, well, I can distribute that after this meeting. So, but the intention is that the Thomas Street car parking arrangements stay exactly the same. So, as is the moment. So, the plan indicates a desirability to create more outdoor dining and more water sensitive urban design. Through green planting in that location. And through detailed design, we might be able to achieve that. But with the current car parking arrangements, that can be quite difficult. You know, and it's quite interesting to provide a really nice ambiance for successful trading at Thomas Street. Having more outdoor dining and having more greenery would probably improve its overall amenity appearance. But it may be expensive car parking spaces in the future. Councillor Lorentson: So, there's a section between O'Meary Street roundabout and the Islander entrance.

02:33:00 Can you confirm that seven angled parks have been replaced with two parallel spaces? Have I read that correctly or not? Director Walsh: I'd need to take that on notice, Councillor Lorentson. And I can advise you for that. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. I might throw quite a few questions at you. Just again, in terms of inconsistencies. That, you know, just whether or not there are, in fact, only 10 car parks locked. And we've got probably a couple of amendments that I want to throw just for discussion also that picks up the designated and undesignated or unmarked car park spaces. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillor, questions please. Councillor Lorentson: I'm not going to read all your questions. Okay. No worries. That'll do for now. Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Just around the car parking situation, from anything I've read, policy reform is best

02:34:00 accepted when it's possible. It's implemented incrementally. And back to the discussion around data, along with what Councillor Phillips has mentioned this morning. We talked about data in terms of cycling. Is there a way we can collect data around car parking? Like how long a car stays, when it's empty? Where are we at with that to be able to inform the decision moving forward over the 20-year plan, so it's data-based? Director Walsh: So, first of all, I think it's important for us to be able to collect data around car parking. Previously, Council have undertaken a car park tech trial, but it did not include Noosaville. So, it was for Noosaheads and Hastings Street. So, there is the capacity to actually collect data like that. And that gave us a lot of information to be able to inform the parking provisions around the Noosaheads precinct. We haven't had the budget to do such a detailed exercise at Noosaville. There was some basic assessment to inform the car parking arrangements for the parking management plan, which we've been working through with workshops.

02:35:00 And I can advise you on what, because they needed to try and determine what was the average length of stay. And they did a spot survey on mid-week or normal conditions versus peak conditions to try and inform what is the best length of stay for our residents who might be expected to visit there on a normal day versus peak season. So, there has been some parking, definitely parking data gathered, but not to the sophistication of Noosaheads. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Then just a question through the Chair. Just, we've had a lot going on with the budget. Did you put that up as a budget request in this round of, I don't recall seeing it? Director Walsh: No, no, we haven't put up a budget request for a detailed tech trial for Noosaville car parking. So, we've just used a basic spot survey to inform the parking management plan. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Off the top of your head, what do you think, through the Chair, what would that sort of cost? I mean, if that's out of order, that's fine, isn't it? Director Walsh: I think the budget for the Noosaheads car park tech trial, which was quite significant,

02:36:00 including MS4s and meters and the like, was in the order of $150,000 to $200,000. So, it's not cheap technology to actually do that. And Noosaheads is fairly easy to gather because we have sort of controlled in one, you know, one way in, one way out, so you can actually easily track the amount of time that a car is actually spending in specific areas. Yeah. So, Noosaville might be a lot more complex because of the number of entry and exit points and the length of the foreshore. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: You mentioned the Shire-wide car parking management plan before and that the Noosaville foreshore will be part of that. What information will you be gathering as part of that process? Director Walsh: Well, the information that we've already gathered to date is a midweek, you know, examination of how long cars spend in the space so that we have a good understanding. But the first step that we'd normally do also is engage with all the business stakeholders to get their intelligence over what is an appropriate parking regime that suits their requirements. So, and then, you know, subsequent to that, then there's a broader community engagement

02:37:00 about what works for them. And then there's lots of nuances like, you know, disabled groups, like where they'd like to see more disabled parking and the like, or, you know, loading facilities to drop people off and loading gear and the like. So, there's a multi sort of step to actually gathering that. Mayor Wilkie: And just to clarify what I thought you may have said before, that it'll involve an audit of the number of spaces in the precinct and which ones are disability parking and what are timed and so on and so forth. That's correct. Commercial vehicles. Yeah. So, there'll be some good data coming out of that. That's correct. Speaker 1: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks a lot. Just a couple more questions about car parks. I may have not read this correctly, but the, what's the current status of the delivery vehicle access to the businesses around the boathouse and the Catalina? And Jetty 186. Has the direct vehicle access been removed or altered?

02:38:00 Director Walsh: I'd need to take that question on notice, Councillor. It's fair to say, though, that we have a lot of informal vehicle use within the foreshore. Yeah. Which is, and this is one of the issues that the Master Plan set out to actually address, is that we do need to better manage the situation because, you know, having a car park or cars within green space is actually diminishing. The quality of the recreation space. And also adding to, you know, unsafe practices. You know, so, and the possible for collisions. So, the Master Plan is seeking to better manage those arrangements. The consultants and ourselves think we've done a very good job of actually ensuring that all the current formal spaces are recognised. But if the operators are thinking that they can continue to drive through bollards and actually go and park beside their business in the middle of the lawn space, that might be an unreleased issue. Speaker 1: Just to clarify, are you referring to the Pelican, Bowhire and Catalina access?

02:39:00 Councillor Lorentson: No, further down. New Jetty 186 and Catalina. Oh, Pelican, sorry. You're right. Yep. Speaker 1: So, the access to the Pelican, at the moment, the Master Plan has retained maintenance and delivery access, which is in line with, you know, the requirements of the Master Plan. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. I might just look into that question again and come back to you. Talking about formal car parks, regarding quota park, again, can you confirm or just clarify, there's Shepparton 1 markings being identified. Does that result in a reduction of available car parking spaces? Director Walsh: So, as usual, when, you know, informal arrangements are made, you know, there's, you know, there's a reduction in the number of car parking spaces, you know, so, and Councillor, you'll be aware

02:40:00 of this, about when we introduce T's and L's, you know, on streets, we actually add, you know, certainty about car parking spaces. In some cases, it actually does reduce the number of car parking available, but in terms of trying to provide an orderly arrangement, which is safe around green space, you know, the Master Plan has indicated delineation of car parking spaces to, you know, more formalise and keep it clear about where people should park and shouldn't park, but again, this is a question that will get down to the detailed design. You're actually interrogating a Master Plan at a level that was never really designed to do, you know, so, and, you know, when and if we get funding to actually achieve a detailed design of that question, then we'll have all the extremely detailed survey, we'll have very detailed plans laid out, all the delineation, and as we've discussed already, that would be subject to ongoing community engagement and counselling with you and funding with you to make sure we've got it right.

02:41:00 Councillor Lorentson: And just last question, in terms of the shared pathway adjacent to the boat ramp, there's a bit of discussion, Councillor, Mayor Wilkie mentioned about three metre, sorry, the need to consider 3.5, what I call gold standard sort of pathway. Can I ask, if we upgraded the pathway to three metres, not to the 3.5 metres, would we incur any loss of car parking? Do you want to answer this? Speaker 1: So, the existing path through there is approximately 2.8 metres wide, with no offset to the car park or the boat ramp launching facility. We could continue with the 2.8 metre path as it is, without shade, and with that conflict continuing. If we were to achieve a three metre pathway with a half metre offset to try and provide

02:42:00 a buffer between those conflicts, then we would likely have to repurpose the car parks. So whether we proceeded with a three metre or a 3.5 metre pathway, it's likely that we would have to repurpose those car parks. Councillor Lorentson: Does the current pathway width, which you said 2.8 metres, does that meet state and national accessibility standards? Speaker 1: So, accessibility, a pathway to be accessible only needs to be about 1.2 metres wide for a wheelchair. 1.8 metres for two wheelchairs to pass. If we're trying to achieve Austrode's guidelines, then no, at 2.8 metres it wouldn't be. We also know that the existing pathway is deficient and that we receive CRM's customer complaints regularly about the conflict between bikes, pedestrians, dog walkers. So, we'll continue with that. We'll continue to have that issue if we leave it at as it is. Councillor Lorentson: It would be great to have that information or that data, Aidan, just to understand how

02:43:00 many complaints over what period. Just to, again... Speaker 8: Yeah, that's not the question. Councillor Lorentson: No, it's not. Can you provide that data for us, the CRM complaints? Certainly. That would be great. Thank you. Janelle Parsons: Can I have a moment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It would be mainly what I meant. Councillor Phillips: Yes, I've got a couple more and then we can finish with questions? Thank you, yeah, go ahead. Understanding that it is a master plan, my first amendment is going to be the 3-metre pathways, please, to be, and I've got some information to pull up on the screen for everyone as well. I'll just wait for the amendment. Okay. Thanks. So, not the two, Vicky, just the, um, that's okay because that's a separate amendment.

02:44:00 Thank you. Do you want me to wait for Karen, or? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, you just know that she's left early. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Um, so my amendment is, um, approve the final municipal foreshore infrastructure master plan provided in attachment one, subject to a maximum shared pathway with the three metres for all of the foreshore. You can get rid of the end, Vicky, just get rid of the end, please, and just put a, um, oh, please. Councillor Lorentson: That end is just to make it go to the foreshore. Councillor Phillips: Oh, right. Sorry. I thought it was for my, the second part of that. That's okay. Okay. Um. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, do we have a seconder for that amendment? I need to second it. I can stand alone.

02:45:00 Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: Um, okay. Thank you. Um, first I'll come until December 2024. Um, the three metre shared pathway, uh, was not only considered suitable, but it was optimal as it was presented in the original 80% draft, uh, in June 2024. Um, I'd like to reference the planning and design standards. And, Vicky, if you could bring up that attachment, please. Um, this will help, uh, explain. Um, and. The Aus. Yeah. Um, and it's just on page one. Councillor Wilson: On page one. Councillor Phillips: Uh, there will be a bit that says relationship with Aus Road Guide to Road Design, 6A, 2021. Um, I've got it here. Okay. Um, but you can see it on the screen. So, it says that the Department of Transport and Main Roads, uh, this is a GTMR, um, guideline. In principle, agreed to adopt the standards published in the Aus Road Guide to Road Design, pathway, paths for walking and cycling.

02:46:00 When reference is made to other paths of the Aus Road Guide to Road Design, Aus Road Guide to Traffic Management, or the Aus Road Guide to Road Safety, the reader should also refer to TMR. Okay. It says, this supplement has precedence over the Aus Road Guide to Road Design, part 6A, when applied in Queensland. Details, additional requirements, including accepted with amendments. So, if you, um, go to page three for me, please, Vicky. Uh, it says, this supplement has precedence over the Aus Road Guide to Road Design, part design criteria 5.1, width of path. 5.1.1 says clear width, the path capacity is only increased in one metre width intervals. Page three. Page three.

02:47:00 So the supplement that you're looking at now has precedence over the AusRoad guide to road design when applied in Queensland. It specifies table 5.3 is replaced with the TMR 5.1.4, which is on page 3 coming up in a minute. This means that TMR's supplement to part 6a is the governing standard for shared path design in Queensland, not the AusRoad guide alone. It says path capacity is only increased in one metre increments. Intermediate widths like 3.5 are unlikely to improve capacity. The supplement does not differentiate between new and upgraded paths. And the foreshore path is largely an upgrade of an existing route, so the one metre increment rule applies directly.

02:48:00 A 3.5 metre path is only justified when commuting cyclists are present at higher speeds, which isn't the case here, because we have the data from the community feedback that 95% of users are pedestrians. We do not have the monitoring data showing the number of pedestrians, pedestrians and bicyclists per hour that are currently using this path. The data is explicitly required when applying for grant funding under the Cycle Network Government Grants Program. The planned on-road cycle lane along Gympie Terrace will further reduce cyclist volumes on the shared path, especially commuting cyclists. The policy alignment AusGuides part 6a does mention 3.5 as a desirable route. But also it clearly states 3 metres is acceptable, where cyclist volumes and speeds are low, and that's exactly the case on the foreshore.

02:49:00 And more importantly, TMR's 2023 supplement explicitly replaces this section, stating that the path capacity should only be increased in one metre increments. So there's no support for immediate widths like 3.5 unless justified by usage, which we don't have the data for. The claim that TMR's supplement should only be used in one metre increments is not true. The claim that TMR's supplement only applies to upgrades is unfounded because the supplement makes no distinction. In fact, the foreshore path is largely an upgrade of an existing route, meaning the one metre increment rule applies. The Appendix A figure from AusRoads shows that 3 metres is suitable for recreational use at 20 kilometres per hour, while 3.5 is for mixed recreational and commuting at 30 kilometres an hour. But the foreshore is not a commuter route, with 95% of users being pedestrians and new on-road cycle lanes planned along Gimba Terrace.

02:50:00 The 3.5 metre width is not only necessary, it doesn't fit with the foreshore look and feel. The TMR supplement lack of 50-50 directional split, figure 5.4, you can see there, it actually says that we need 200, stop there, sorry, Vicky, go for it. It explicitly shows that 200 pedestrians per hour and 460 cyclists per hour fits the 3 metre path. I can't see a day where we will have more than 200 pedestrians and 460 cyclists in an hour. A 3 metre path is not a compromise, it's actually a balanced solution, that's why I'm putting the amendment up today. Let's not sacrifice anything along that iconic stretch for an unnecessary half a metre of asphalt.

02:51:00 Space is limited, every metre gained for concrete is a metre lost for green space, shade and community amenity. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I support the amendment. The proposed 3.5. metre shared pathway might meet technical best practice, but it's not the right solution for our Noosaville foreshore. Noosaville foreshore is a low speed community driven foreshore. It's not South Bank, it's not a major city community route, it's Gympie Terrace. And I think we've got to just keep remembering, it's laid back, it's a family friendly foreshore, frequented by walkers, runners, families with children. Young kids on scooters and occasional leisurely cyclists. This is not a high volume, high speed cycling corridor, it's a gentle connection between park like spaces.

02:52:00 A wider path, I actually think, risks over engineering a space that thrives on its low key, relaxed charm. And in doing so, inroads the very character that we've been entrusted to protect. It's also been one of the number one concerns and messages that the community have been sending to us. To leave it alone. Sometimes doing what's best means knowing when not to upscale. And I think a thoughtful 3 metre pathway that meets accessibility standards is supported by data usage. Again, reiterating what Councillor Phillips says. I'd love to see the data that says that we have cyclists commuting through that pathway at 30 kilometres an hour. This is leisurely cycling corridor, a leisurely cycling corridor.

02:53:00 I support safe shared use, but character is really important. And we can't undermine the village feel or sacrifice again what the community values most. The character charm and accessibility of Noosath Lawshore and car parks. Mayor Wilkie: Question. For staff. What weight was given to the TMR standards there? Director Walsh: We're referencing between a number of different documents. So the 3 metres is a minimum. So we're referencing complaints that we have about users already using existing pathway network. And people with dog leads and the ability for people to get around. People with wheelchairs and the like. So our common sense tells us that 3 metres which is already in existence over some of the pathway is not sufficient.

02:54:00 So that's why we recommended 3.5 metres. I'm also concerned about that amendment that in the event the TMR guidelines do change. We're no longer consistent with their guidelines. And no longer eligible for grant funding. So I'd feel more comfortable with that amendment if it said a maximum shared pathway would be consistent with TMR guidelines. So then that would allow us to interpret the guidelines on the basis of good data. Of both pedestrian and cyclist data. And consistent with the TMR guidelines of the day. And I think that that would allow scrutiny by councillors to ensure we're adhering to the guidelines. And also giving us, you know, certainly that we're going to meet our TMR guidelines. But at the same time it could be that under detailed design, you know, at a particular part, on a particular part of that foreshore, that someone, you know, the community actually might want it to be wider than 3 metres. And that concerns me as well. But this is locking you in. So that concerns me. But probably my primary concern is that if we specify that specific distance rather than the generality of the TMR guidelines,

02:55:00 I'm concerned that we may be inconsistent for grant applications in the future. Mayor Wilkie: Yes, if it was a 3.5 metre pathway, that would not make it in breach of TMR guidelines, would it? No, it don't make a difference. It wouldn't make you ineligible for funding, for TMR funding? Director Walsh: And, you know, there could also be funding from the federal government as well. So that's, you know, beyond the jurisdiction of TMR. So just bear that in mind as well. There could be some program coming up. And they'll be looking to the AusRoad standards versus the TMR specific Queensland guidelines. Mayor Wilkie: And the reason for increasing to 3.5 metres and extending out onto the road is to include more shade as well. Is that as a result of the studies done with the heat managers? Director Walsh: Yes, so there's a few reasons that we have a desire to make the pathway wide in that location.

02:56:00 It's to divert pedestrians around the car park and the road. We want a boat ramp from a safety perspective. We want an alternative safe route that's very welcoming and receptive. And having a wide path that's also supported by shading would actually make that a much more attractive route. Shayan, do you want to talk about the heat modelling? Because that is definitely the hottest part, for sure, I understand. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I don't think we could go there based on the amendment at this stage. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, thank you. Sorry, Mr Chair, that's the reason for the width of the park. Okay, I accept the rule. Councillor Phillips: Given that during the process of trying to reach this amendment, I actually sought recommendation for you and from you, I would have loved to know that including TMR at that point, because I would have been happy... No, to counsel that is not a question. Can I amend if the floor is okay with it to include... You know, if there's changes to TMR standards?

02:57:00 Director Walsh: You've informed me of more information at this session. So I've just been thinking I might need to go to a service group for the session. Councillor Phillips: I would have included that had I known that it's not locking us into something. If the floor is happy, I'd like to just put that... Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question to the Chair? No, I'll be with you one more time. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the question is, is the floor happy for Councillor Phillips to reword this amendment? Director Rawlings: Yes. Yes. We want to check out the meter reach. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So can we have the... Councillor Phillips: Keep the meter reach, but for sure consistent given the information that I read out that TMR overrides the Aus Road, that we stay consistent with TMR guidelines and that may... Councillor Lorentson: Or in the... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Or such other minimum as is required by TMR guidelines.

02:58:00 Speaker 9: Oh, okay. Sorry. Mayor Wilkie: Mr Chair, I can suggest something that if this amendment is lost, we can try a new one with proper wording. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You're suggesting you're not happy to do this amendment? I think it's going to be cleaner if we deal with this and then look at another way of dealing with it. As Councillor Wilkie has suggested, he's not happy with it. It does have to be unanimous to make a significant change. So we'll deal with it as moved and then if we want a further amendment, we'll go from there. Mayor Wilkie: I have a further question. Just to clarify, staff. If we were to go with the 3.5 metre... No, no. ...wide pathway, it would not be in breach of TMR guidelines, would it? No. No. Speaker 1: And it goes the other way as well.

02:59:00 So even with pathways that we design now, we get to detailed design and where we're aiming for a 3 metre path, we justify to TMR where they're involved because they're not always involved. It's our pathway. Essentially, we do the best that we can and sometimes we can't meet the TMR guideline and we accept a 2.5 metre path. We do that with TMR as well. So they'll accept on occasion outside of the standard. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Finzel. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Just then a technical question just for my understanding. What do you call the bits on the side that say we go 3.5 and then you have the sort of runoff, you know, people have got to get out of the way. What do you call that? Speaker 8: The cross bridge. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Exactly. So where do you measure it from? We talk in the concrete to concrete as say 3 metres and then you've got the grass way. Or is that overspin?

03:00:00 Yeah. Just to clarify that technical thing. Yeah. Speaker 1: So the clear width is another term that we use and that's where we're designing a bikeway is a width from the edge of the sealed pathway, whether that's asphalt or concrete. Yeah. And we're aiming for a minimum half a metre on anything. You could snag handlebars on. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Clearly. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Councillor Larkin. Can I ask a question? The recommendation part C states that council note that each stage of a subsequent delivery of the new foreshore master plan will be subject to detailed design refinement guided by the endorsed master plan and include ongoing community consultation including engagement with the key stakeholders to ensure the most appropriate and locally informed design outcomes are achieved. If there are changes in TMR guidelines, doesn't the amendment C of the recommendation give

03:01:00 council the opportunity to recognise that this is a living document and that it'll get tweaked? And any updates with TMR, that'll be all captured under that recommendation. So my question is, the amendment as read is actually fine, given it's in the context of the overall recommendation, which recognises the document as a living document that can be amended at any time. Director Walsh: If that was a question, I'll respond. I think it just sets up a contradiction that makes it difficult to try and determine what staff are designing to. I agree with you at first. A lot of clarity. Yeah. So I think it sets up a contradiction that makes it difficult to try and determine what Because this is specifying specifically Richard MacGillivray. It's very difficult to change it, you know, it's subject to consultation. Mayor Wilkie: Look, I'll argue against the amendment. The AusRoads standards, Councillor Phillips points well made, but we're not obliged to follow the ETMR standards, which are minimums.

03:02:00 The desirable minimum width of shared path widths under the AusRoad standards is 3.5 metres. And it actually says a greater width may be required with a number of cyclists and pedestrians very high. There is a high probability of conflict between users. That's people walking dogs, you know, on leads. Dogs on leads can stray, impede the passage of pedestrians, people on bikes, people on scooters. Scooters, mobility scooters, wheelchairs. The whole purpose of having a wider path at this point was because we wanted to improve the amenity of that section. It's been described as an asphalt desert at the moment. And the intention was to have a wider path to make it safer, more inclusive, more enjoyable for all users.

03:03:00 And improve the amenity and safety and access for all users at that section. That point. Councillor Wilson: We're not talking about specific points, it's the whole point. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Yeah. Well, I think the point I'm going to is that... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, cancel it. You didn't have a point at all. Mayor Wilkie: You didn't have a point at all. Because this would limit the pathway at the pinch point. The pinch point we're talking about, where this would have the most negative impact, is where two pathways converge into one near the boat ramp. Let's be frank, that's what we're talking about here. We've got the volume of pedestrian and cycle traffic from two pathways merging into one. In the other areas, we can step off the path. At this pinch point, you've got the boat ramp on one side and you've got the road on the other. We do need, unfortunately, to improve the amenity and safety and respect the feedback from disability advocates

03:04:00 to have a wider pathway at this point. And three metres is only 20 centimetres wider than the existing 2.8 metre pathway. It's not really respecting the feedback we've received if we only increase it by 20 centimetres. And if you limit it, it's being a bit too prescriptive at this stage, I think, so I can't support it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll follow on. Councillor, we're dealing with a conflict of objectives. And there's been certain assumptions made in this amendment. The assumption is this is not a commuter bike path. That assumption is incorrect. This is dedicated in our cycle and walking strategy as a mechanism to achieve a statewide corridor for cyclists commuting between Toowon and the rest of Queensland. It was a recommendation of staff to include it within the parkway design.

03:05:00 And that's why we went out originally with separating it. Because I don't believe there's any way we can achieve the objective of having safe recreational slow use with commuter use. I believe we will need, in the 20 year timeframe, a clear separation of bikes and pedestrians and kids riding their own little bikes. That's what we put out in stage one. And the feedback was we don't want those car parks. There is no way to resolve that issue unless we redesign the area between Thomas Street and Weyba Road. And the only sensible way, if we don't want to lose car parks, is to make it one way and make it an active street. But to suggest we can get by with three metres is ignoring the reality of today. Staff have said, clearly, it's a constant source of complaint. Here's the latest one that came through to us by email. I am 77 years old. And my wife is 76.

03:06:00 We both love walking our dogs along the path on Hinty Terrace. But unfortunately, we've had three bad experiences with bikes on this path. The last one left us traumatised. After the rider verbally abused us for walking too slow and taking up too much space. A joint walking path is not working as bikes don't have bells and approach you at speed. This is the advice I get quite a lot in that section. So I'm going to give you a little bit of advice. The first one is there's constant conflicts. The sensible compromise that came out the next day was to widen the path to allow bikes to pass more easily. And it won't completely remove it. But to suggest we can get by three metres is suggesting that we don't currently have a bikeway in the path between Thomas Street and Weyba Road that is significantly overused for the capacity of the design. It's not a bikeway. It's not something that happens when the tourist peaks here.

03:07:00 It's something that's happening every day. And it's only sensible to maximise that with as much as we can, while realising it's a compromise solution. That the only long term solution is having a separate bikeway, which will require a redesign. Anyone else want to talk? Councillor Phillips, would you like to close? Councillor Phillips: Yes, I will. Thank you. Just trying to find the reference for the commuting, because it actually defines that there needs to be a change in the end location, which I can't see a change in the end location ever coming. But I want to reaffirm the supplement from TMR is that this precedes, this supplement has precedence over the Oz Road design when applied in. So TMR have said that, and I'm assuming these guys are the experts in path management,

03:08:00 path capacity is only increased in one metre width intervals because it is unlikely to improve capacity. I think it's more about the fact that I understand there's a conflict and we're getting CRMs. I've spent my whole life here. People would like to sometimes walk through the boat ramp. We've got to allow some common sense to people. It still fits within the recommendation. We're actually here to ensure that the Noosaville foreshore remains a place for people, not just for movement. A three metre shared path is safe, functional, and it's sensitive to the space that it occupies. This community does not want urban scale. They want us to protect the unique character of Noosaville.

03:09:00 I think they made that pretty clear. Let's approve the master plan with an amendment that suggests that it is still within the guidelines, specifically outlined here, and that we show our community that we are listening. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Put the motion in those in, sorry, to the amendment. Those in favour? That's Councillor Lorentson and Phillips. Those against? It's Wilkie, Finzel, Wagner, Wilson, and Stewart. The motion is not passed. So we go back to the original motion. Do we have other amendments that people would like to test? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I have a few. So Vicky, I might start with. Speaker 6: Just one moment. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

03:10:00 Councillor Finzel: Can I just ask a question? Sure. Just to clarify, the staff mentioned there was a mix of parts, some at TMR and some at council, is that right? No, they're all under council management. Director Walsh: Oh, they're all council. But we do rely a lot as part of trying to upgrade our cycle and pathway network on TMR grants. So we could also apply other programs which are released by the federal government for pathway upgrades as well. Janelle Parsons: Okay, thank you. Thank you.

03:11:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So is this the amendment you wish to move, Councillor Lyson? Councillor Lorentson: Yes, it is. So note that the Noosa Foreshore Management Plan is a living document open to ongoing refinement in response to community feedback, emerging data, and evolving local priorities. Given the original use of high-end climate scenarios, e.g. RCP 8.5, council supports an adaptive management approach that balances risk, science, and cost-effective solutions. Ongoing consultation with key user groups including boaties, fishers, residents, businesses, and environmental stakeholders will ensure that the plan remains inclusive. Inclusive, flexible, and community-driven.

03:12:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just the mechanics. The last statement, will ensure the plan remains inclusive, flexible, and community-driven, is not really worded as a motion. Councillor Lorentson: No, maybe delete that part. Just finish including boaties, including ongoing consultation with community stakeholders. With key user groups. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Ongoing consultation will occur with key user groups. Councillor Lorentson: That would be great, yeah. Will occur with key user groups, including. Speaker 6: Do you want all the including boaties? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Yes, please. And environmental stakeholders. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, and I believe Councillor Phillips seconded it.

03:13:00 Thank you. Councillor Lorentson, do you have the floor? Councillor Lorentson: So the strength of this plan lies not only in its vision. Councillor Phillips. Phillips. Thank you. So the strength of this plan lies not only in its vision, but it's also in its ability to adapt, to be responsive to new data, shifting conditions, and the lived experiences of our community. The amendment in front of us reinforces that adaptability, flexibility, and safeguards its relevance over time. When the Noosa foreshore management plan was first developed, it was modelled on high-end climate projections. Since then, our understanding of climate trajectories and local impacts has evolved, and that's the reason I've included that as part of the amendment. An adaptive management approach acknowledges that risk, science, and community expectations are not static, and neither should our response be.

03:14:00 Crucially, this amendment also formalises the ongoing partnership with our community, the people who use and know this space best, our boaties, our fishes, our local residents, and our environmental groups. They bring invaluable experience and on-the-ground perspective. Their continued involvement ensures that we're not just ticking boxes, but actively co-designing a plan that delivers practical, sustainable outcomes now and into the future. So by embedding this flexibility, transparency, and continuous engagement into the plan, we create an achievable plan, one that's resilient and one that's, in my opinion, truly community-led. Mayor Wilkie: Question. Yes. Can we go back to the original motion, part C of the original motion, please?

03:15:00 Can we minimise that so we can read? Read that? Councillor Wilson: I can't. Speaker 9: I just want to read item C. Mayor Wilkie: The question is how does what's being proposed not, how does what's being proposed, how is what's being proposed not consistent with part C? In terms of efficiency do we need an extra clause in the original motion whereas part C encapsulates that?

03:16:00 That it's an ongoing document subject to best practice and community consultation to ensure the most appropriate detailed design response. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it's a question rather than a point of order? Councillor Lorentson: It's a question. Sorry. Question for the councillor. So first of all councillor, Mayor Wilkie, this only appeared in front of us in this meeting. I hadn't read C. And secondly, my understanding of C that it's specific to consultation during the detailed design refinement. So my amendment is to basically highlight that evolving local priorities, demographic shifts and emerging data. Yeah, there is some duplication.

03:17:00 I think that the point of difference is just identifying that the high end climate change scenarios, identifying that that's also part of emerging data and spelling that out. So it gives, it's a part, it's maybe a C1 but it just reinforces what you've said and maybe is a little bit more explicit, just describes it a little bit more. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, what's the point you're making about climate change? I think it's important to identify high end climate response data given that. Councillor Lorentson: Just to identify that the master plan at the moment identifies high end climate change scenarios and I just think in that we need to make sure that all our decisions are grounded in the latest and the most responsible information climate science. So rather than going to a worst case scenario, my motion just identifies that an adaptive management approach is one that balances risk mitigation with flexibility, that we

03:18:00 don't have to go straight to a worst case scenario. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: So a question for staff. What assumptions have we made about climate change scenarios? Were they actually high end or were they too low? Director Walsh: My understanding is that the moderate end of the scenario, so Sian just had to step out for a second. Sian's online. Director Rawlings: Can I say something before Sian? So Sian's online and can answer that. But I will refer councillors to page, I think it's page 35. Can you do the same? Director Walsh: Yeah, but also the other parts of the document. Director Rawlings: Yeah, and the other, exactly. So there's parts of the master plan that already say this. So for instance, it says the resilience strategies in the master plan are flexible, adaptive and staged so they can respond over time to changing weather events and community values. So the master plan already encapsulates what's being said here or kind of put on the table.

03:19:00 But in terms of specific scenarios, Sian, did you want to comment also? Speaker 5: Yeah. Hi, everyone. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: Can you hear me? Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you. And sorry, I had to step out for a family matter. Basically, with the, with this project, we took the coastal hazards adaptation and plan modeling, which is following the state government technical guidelines to use 0.8 meters of sea level rise by 2100. And so that is the type, that was the type, the, the modeling that we took into consideration to design the concept designs for this project. So we didn't take on board any new modeling of climate scenarios. Now the 0.8 meters is mandated by the state in their current technical guidelines. It is also reflective of the RCP at 8.5, which is now the SSP 5-8.5.

03:20:00 This is in our climate change response policy at council referred to as well. And we do acknowledge that we will take on board the RCP at 8.5. We will take on board any new science from CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology, and other reputable organizations like the IPCC to continually consider whether that emission scenario is relative, continues to be relevant into the future. At this time, because we refer to that scenario in our policy, I wouldn't, and because the state guidelines recommends a 0.8 meters sea level rise to be used, we, I wouldn't recommend moving away from that. We acknowledge that we need to continue to demonstrate best practice and take in new data, but global emissions continue to rise year on year. And there's a number of other factors that come into play on why this emission scenario is still relevant and no longer the worst case. So I think let's continue. And we, I think acknowledging that we'll continue to be adaptive is always best practice.

03:21:00 And that is in our climate change response policy, our foreshore master plan, and our CHAP. So, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, I understand the amendment. My only question is what used to be called RCP 8.5 currently considered a high-end climate scenario. Speaker 5: Yes, it's a high-end emissions scenario, correct, but there are now, the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report recognises that low likelihood high impact outcomes as a result of climate feedbacks, tipping elements in the climate system and other processes could lead to higher levels of warming and sea level rise and can no longer be ruled out from the risk assessment process. But that notwithstanding, the modelling and the work done in this foreshore master plan

03:22:00 was based on the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan, which takes on the state technical guidelines of 0.8 metres of sea level rise by 2100. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Mr Chair, in the interest of moving things on, it's almost 4 o'clock and we do have a resident group coming in at 4.30. I would like to speak to this amendment. I question that its necessity given that Part C encapsulates all that and the adaptive approach to climate change and community sentiment is already captured on page 35 of the document itself and cautioning against overriding that. I question all that. I agree with the sentiment expressed in it, but I think it's a duplication. Councillor Phillips: I'll just speak in support because I really like the idea of having a living document when it's 20 years. I think it's really important to have something that can be, and I understand that that might be in the original,

03:23:00 but this sort of gives us even more clarity that it'll be ever evolving along with the information that we're sort of getting in. So yeah, thank you for bringing it to the table. Ms Wilson. Councillor Wilson: My question is more than a question. About the concept of a living document, and this is going to be directed to the Chair. Do we expect to keep paying to redraft this document or are we going to deal with changes to the design process? Director Walsh: We're not expecting to change the actual document unless there's a council resolution that requests us to change the document. It'll be interpreted at each stage when we do detailed concept design against the principles contained in the master plan. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Ms Bishop-Torke. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you Mr Chair. Look, I want to commend Councillor Lorentson for bringing this because, you know, we're really here representing community and trying to make sure we get the best wording to support this living document.

03:24:00 Um. Um. I do think perhaps, um, you know, the definition of a living document is that it can be continually edited and updated as new information becomes available and situations change. I asked a question at the start of the morning to grant, um, for staff to inform, you know, what this 20 year plan means. Um, I think there's enough sitting before us without the inclusion of this item D. That informs, you know, how these scenarios and different changes and community engagement can inform as we move forward. So I really understand where Councillor Lorentson's trying to go and I support her diligence in the, in the matter. But I do think, um, perhaps in my opinion today, um, it, I don't think we need to go to this detail in terms of, I think the document itself is a living document.

03:25:00 As questions have been raised and discussions around the table today. I don't want to make it too prescribed that we do then limit ourselves further down the track. I think we're all well aware of, you know, advocating for our community and most aware of what they want. And I'm very aware that the community will be brought along on this journey. Um. So I, I'm satisfied as the, the document sits that our community will be definitely engaged. And their aspirations will be considered. With fairness and equity. Um. With adaptability and effectiveness as we, you know, gallop through this 20 years. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Others to talk? Um. Um. I think I'm similar to Councillor Finzel. I think the sentiment that's being expressed is, is what is already intent within the plan. I think Councillor Wilson's questions are, if you remember what we're dealing with is a framework that will evolve as a result of detailed design.

03:26:00 So it's probably a living document made. It will raise up further expectations that we're going to amend the framework rather than just refine as we go. Um. So I, and I also agree that, uh, it is embedded both within, uh, I can see as it currently stands and within the document. So I, whether it's justification that it's, it's probably just overkill to me. So I won't support it. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I don't think there's anyone else who wants to talk. Yeah. Thank you for all the commentary around. I don't think I disagree with anyone. Um. Probably I put myself in your position when an amendment comes forward where I think, yeah, possibly duplication. Again, haven't had the opportunity to read Mayor Wilkie's amendment until on the floor today. Um. But I put myself in your position and I think to myself, surely any opportunity to support ongoing consultation. Any opportunity to support continuous engagement.

03:27:00 Any opportunity to provide clarity to our residents given what's happened preceding before this for the last two years. Where they don't feel perked. They don't feel like their feedback has had any direct impact with the revised plan. So any opportunity that provides some, some assurance to our community that we are not committed to continuous engagement. Um. If I was sitting in your shoes, I would support. So, um. I'm going to support the motion because, um, we need to keep rebuilding public trust. Um. It was fractured over this process. Um. And this is just another way to just say we're committed to co-designing this plan. And we understand that it's a community asset. Um. It's funded by community money. Um. And we need to serve the people that use the foreshore.

03:28:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The motion. The amendment. Sorry. Those in favour. Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips. Opposed. Opposed. Deputy Councillor Wilkie. Finzel. Wagner. Wilson. And Stockwell. Okay. Do we have another amendment? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Um. No. That council ensures regular updates. Can you find that one, Vicki? Um. I don't have the form in front of me. But the council ensures regular updates on the new foreshore management plan are made available to the public via the project webpage with formal annual status reports presented to council to track progress, timelines and community priorities. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We have a seconder. Angela Phillips.

03:29:00 Councillor Lorentson: Um. Probably reiterating what I've just said before. Um. I think. Clear, consistent communication. Um. Is essential for maintaining public trust. And ensuring accountability throughout the delivery of the new foreshore management plan. Providing regular online updates allows the community to stay informed in real time about project milestones. Changes and opportunities again to engage. It ensures that our residents, our businesses and key stakeholders can access accurate information without having to rely on formal council meetings or second-hand reports. Meanwhile, an annual status reports to council creates a formal mechanism for tracking progress. Assessing alignment with community expectations. Um. Identifying costs. And identifying any emerging risks of development. I think together the updates strengthen transparency.

03:30:00 Reinforces the plan's status as a living document. And helps ensure that delivery remains, again, responsive, inclusive and well on track. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Question. Um. Would a progress on the, this approach, a plan like this be tracked in, in quarterly reporting as part of the update? Director Walsh: That would be certainly my preference because it integrates with all the other reporting that we do on all our projects across the board. Also note that we're not funded to have a precinct manager. You know, to actually, you know, so to actually, you know, track, you know, the overall progress to progress. The way we're set up financially is that we have funding for projects. Um. And then we have a project officer who goes and executes it. So I'm just concerned that from a funding perspective that we're not set up to do this level of ongoing updates. Um.

03:31:00 Um. And to be as efficient as possible, um, from an administrative perspective to integrate it into our operational reporting, I'm sure we can update that on the website, you know, to ensure that, that, um, it's kept up to date as we make progress on Noosaville. But I just don't want to overstate our capacity, you know, in that regard because we don't have a precinct manager. Mayor Wilkie: Question. Follow up question. Um. Projects associated with the Noosaville Portional Master Plan would also come to the Capital Works Program updates that we get quarterly as well. That's correct. And also the operational plan quarterly updates and annual report. Director Walsh: And we also undertake that work in progress reporting on our website as it is for each suburb locality. So under Noosaville, you'd be able to get a report on everything we're doing in Noosaville at a particular given time. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Through the Chair. Um. Through the Chair. The amendment was actually, I actually, uh, proposed that, uh, I said that Council should provide quarterly progress or status reports. And the response I got from, um, staff was that, uh, quarterly reports is an onerous requirement.

03:32:00 Regular updates could be provided on the webpage with annual status reports to Council. So I did change my amendment, um, after, um, after being given advice that quarterly reports may be onerous. So, um, that. Director Walsh: There was a lot of communication coming through in, in, in recent days, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: This was this morning at 10.30. Director Walsh: So, um, so, um, and I think that the intention is that to integrate reporting into our established reporting system. Yep. You know, which is through our quarterly Capital Works, um, reporting, which goes to. Which is preferred, yeah. And then also through our quarterly operational plan updates. Makes a lot of sense. I can certainly ensure that we'll put more effort into it. Um, to actually give a lot more dialogue associated with those updates. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So provide. So I, um, I think where the heart of the problem is, uh, the initial report shall last to plan. Once complete, um, will be an item on the current, on the current, on the current completions

03:33:00 on our corporate plan and our annual operational plan. Once it's complete, it becomes a series of projects that move forward and forward. Where I took from the regular, um, you know, the yearly one would be if it retained, you know, its implementation is once again in a corporate plan that you'll be doing that in your annual report. One of the projects we've done to implement the plan rather than, uh, states report more generally. But, yeah. Because if only the foreshore master plan that gets reported on a quarterly basis, then we know that these are projects underneath. Councillor Lorentson: Can I, can I ask a question? Um, to the directors. Um, which do you prefer? Uh, I put forward quarterly. I've gone on advice that annual is better. But I'm happy to work on advice. But I think the intent of the motion is simply to provide regular updates. Yeah. Director Walsh: I suppose my advice actually is I don't see the need for the motion because we would

03:34:00 normally report on progress in our quarterly operational, you know, plan updates. So on operational matters we're up to, um, in the area. And we'd also report on projects to the capital works executive. So, um, I, I think by maintaining the status quo, you have a, every expectation to get regular reporting on projects we make process of. And then we can discuss, well, how do we project that into the community to ensure they're fully informed. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Any further questions? Councillor Finzel: Just a question back to, you raised the point around the locality, um, drop down box on the council website. Um. How onerous would be on staff to, like, make those updates there? Director Walsh: Well, we do that automatically at the moment as is. Yes. So, but, um, so that's not onerous at all. So that's, that's, this is what I mean is standard practice for us to do this so that you can get this information. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Thank you. Director Walsh: Ms Wilson? Councillor Wilson: Yeah. I want to support this amendment.

03:35:00 Um, agree with all the comments made already about the quarterly reporting we already have. Um, but for me this is too vague to be able to measure whether it's been achieved. So until, until regular updates, that's not defined how often. Um, formal annual reports, I don't, formal annual status reports, we don't have a definition of a formal annual status report. Um, and I don't know how we would, the, the plan itself is not going to be updated. It's a static document. Um, and I don't know how we would track community priorities through the, the project management process. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Others wish to talk? I'm close. Um, I'm, I think I will. Um, I think it is desirable to have annual reporting on the overall framework. Overall plan.

03:36:00 I think currently, and I'm not 100% sure, it would be an item on our corporate plan, therefore on our operational plan. So that is a given for a quarterly reporting annual basis. Um. I think all the other stuff relates to projects. And that's something we consider on a case-by-case basis. Councillor Wegener: Um. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So while I understand what Councillor Lorentson said once again, I do think it is a little bit, it is not really, um, what we, we're doing here is, um, trying to staple how normal operations would be without getting up. So. Councillor Finzel: I just, yeah, I'd like to just add again, you know, I want to really, um, take the time to thank Councillor Lorentson for her diligence and hard work to ensure that, you know, she's given the best representation, you know, to the community. Um, and that is to be applauded. And in terms of, I think, the comments around the table today, I'm satisfied that we have enough process in place to ensure that that updates reporting from an annual level and

03:37:00 all the things that we've already discussed. I won't go down that road again. Um. So I won't be supporting this amendment today. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Loneson. Councillor Finzel: Um. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy probably to make this one fall and then go to my original. But I do want to just state that after years of engagement, um, workshops, multiple revisions, there still remains widespread contention in the community about what will happen, when, when's it going to happen, how is it going to be funded. Um. The amendment is, again, a response to community feedback. That's our job. The fact that it's already implied. It's already on page 35. It needs to be said. It needs to be spelt out. The community don't go through this document. You know, they, they want to know straight up. They read the first few paragraphs and they want to know what's happening.

03:38:00 So, again, our job is to ensure that we respond to community concerns. And the community concerns are what is happening. What council plans to deliver. When, why and how. So that we measure in front response to that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Could a motion be made? The amendment. Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson and Phillips. Those against? It is Councillor Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener, Wilson and Stockwell. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I'll move my original motion, um, amendment that council provides quarterly progress or status reports on the implementation of the Noosa Shore, Noosa Horseshoe Management Plan. I'll just get that. Um. Um. Um. Um. Um.

03:39:00 Councillor Lorentson: The Council provide quarterly progress or status reports on the implementation of the Noosa Foreshore Management Plan to ensure transparency and keep the community informed of key milestones, timelines and any changes to project delivery. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, we have a seconder for that. Councillor Phillips: I'll be to second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Loneson and Councillor Phillips. Councillor Loneson. Councillor Lorentson: I don't need to re-argue this one. Same as what I said before, this sort of addresses some of the issues with the wording for the amendment beforehand and aligns with some of the statements made by Mayor Wilkie in terms

03:40:00 of quarterly progress. It aligns also with Director Shaun Walsh's preference in reporting. So I'll just leave this to the vote. Mayor Wilkie: I have a question for Councillor Loneson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Loneson is still talking when we talk. I thought she finished. Councillor Lorentson: No. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Loneson. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: So, Councillor Lorentson, does this mean continue to provide quarterly report progress or status reports as part of the operational plan on the implementation of the municipal offshore management plan to ensure servitude of the furniture? Yes, I am. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: So, would you be happy with that? Would you be happy with the change of wording to continue to provide quarterly reports, progress or status reports as part of the operation? Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Can we make the change, please, if everyone agrees? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Continue to provide quarterly progress or status reports. Mayor Wilkie: As part of operational plan.

03:41:00 As part of. The operational plan reporting regime. Would. Okay. Yeah. Well, that's. Janelle Parsons: Like what we already did. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. That's what's reinforcing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I thank Councillor Lorentson for being open to the change. It reinforces that this sort of reporting is underway and anyone who goes to the trouble of reading this, the motion when it's finalised on this issue will see that there will be regular reporting as part of the operational plan as intended and I know when that occurs we can also go to the extra step of as councillors taking it upon ourselves to inform our community through our various media to let them know what's happening as well. Speaker 8: That's awesome.

03:42:00 Councillor Wilson: I won't support it. I think again, it's a bit vague in terminology but looks like it's an extra level of reporting on top of what we already do because we don't have much progress reports as such. Like if we've just got general reports that come to general community meetings, meeting meetings, it's then redundant because that's usually happening but I think this is going to actually add to more confusion by looking at there's another process on top. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Others wish to talk to it? Councillor Phillips: I think I'll just quickly speak to it because I think one thing that I try to be really mindful of is whilst most of us here, everyone here understands, you know, the process and sitting in workshops and getting those quarterly reports, for me, you know, when I speak to community, they don't know if we're doing it the right way. They don't really be really clear. And so for me, this one, yeah, I'll support this because it, the master plan we saw

03:43:00 last year was something that community were really passionate about. Whether we, you know, people disagree or agree with how it was portrayed in community, there's certainly, we couldn't question that they want to be part of probably one of the most loved places in our Shire. And so, you know, I think it's important for us to be able to do that. I can see why the amendments are there to really make sure that this one, we build trust through this whole process. We take people on the journey because the people I speak to, they're 4, 14, they're on the school pick up at sport by now. So they don't know what we're doing. And I think we have an obligation to them to make sure that they're continually updated through any projects. So if it doesn't create any more strenuous pressure on staff on some of the things that we're supporting of that really transparent, open reporting. Thanks.

03:44:00 Councillor Wilson: I just have a quick question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Make sure it's a real question. Councillor Wilson: We've got to provide quarterly progress for status reports. I was just concerned about how we decide if this condition has been met. Because a quarterly progress report isn't defined, a status report isn't defined. Are we, you know, are we, you know, are we, you know, are we, you know, are we, you know, are we, you know, are we, you know, are we, you know, are we going to be able to achieve this outcome now? Director Walsh: I'm satisfied with the resolution. I think it replicates the general intent of quarterly operational planning status. Councillor Wilson: If you had a choice between a quarterly progress report or the status report, what would be the difference? Director Walsh: Well, I think it's fairly flexibility a moderating the report on quarterly as part of the operational plan update, so I can take that, this resolution into to account, and In terms of how I more comprehensively report against it, so I'm comfortable with this, in terms of integrating existing information.

03:45:00 Councillor Wegener: So are you saying that you would alter your normal reporting with the operational plan because of this? So that this amplifies for how you would report your normal reporting on the quarterly? Director Walsh: We'd probably put more information in to be simple to respond to this resolution. It's a request of council and that's a reasonable request. Councilor Kinzell. Councillor Finzel: Well, through the Chair now, I guess I'm seeking clarity, rolling the conversation back. It was a matter of capacity in the organisation. We didn't have a precinct manager. It wasn't the dollars for the budget to support a previous amendment. So I'm... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I thought it was a good question. Councillor Finzel: Is there a question? Okay. Do we have capacity in the organisation to now bring forward extra reporting around the context of capacity and dollars?

03:46:00 Through the Chair to Mr CEO. Thank you. Director Walsh: So we already report quarterly through the operational plan on progress of this construction master plan. So I think by building this into existing reporting mechanisms, I'm comfortable with that rather than requiring a separate report. So I just wanted to be clear that we don't have... We don't have a precinct manager to sort of drive outcomes and, you know, to be the forefront of Noosaville. You know, the more we can build it into our standard practice, we can achieve that. And this meets that intent about putting it into our standard reporting practice. Speaker 8: Can I just answer that? Councillor Finzel: Yes, please. Because the question was directed through the Chair to the Mr CEO. But thank you, Star, for the answer. I think when we're talking about questions of capacity, I do believe the CEO is the best person to report on that. Given our organisation is at capacity, we hear it around the table all the time. Our best approach is we fully want to engage with our community and, rightly so, put them at the centre of all our decision-making.

03:47:00 I would like to hear, please, Mr Senior, around capacity. Speaker 8: I think what the original question was in terms of capacity is to write extra reports. That's the full point. It's a full-blown report that requires a whole lot of detail. This would be included as one of our initiatives in our operational plan, which it already is. So we would just... And then we would just basically... It's a dot-point report. So it's basically saying, here's the number of projects this is going up to, on track, not started, that sort of stuff, and just captures some of the pieces. So this is general. Because one of the things you need to be aware too, this is a master plan, and like we said, a master plan sort of sits there and then it becomes project-based. There will be times when there's no after-reporter, because this is a long-term thing. So even when we're building the changing places, that's a 12-month exercise. So if we report a quarter of this, like, well, we built that wall today, we built that wall

03:48:00 next month, we built that wall next... That's... I'm going to flip it, but that's the sort of thing that it's not going to be a really broad... But I take Councillor Amelia's point that keeping the community up to speed, so they've got somewhere to go to have a look at it, that's a... To me, it's fine when it's not to be... Not that over-risk, because I remember our operational plan has... Johnson can tell me, but there's 84, 177... I can't remember the actual number. Pardon? 107. 107. Yeah, there was a seven there. That's... Yeah, there are a number of projects. So we're reporting on that on a regular basis. So I don't see it as being over-risk to do it through the operational plan. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: And... I understand what you're saying, Jess, about, you know, we want to give as much information to the people, but we wound up saying that it's going to be in the operational plan, the quarterly operational plan. And whether it's one sentence or two sentences, it's probably not going to filter out to the

03:49:00 public that you're speaking about any more or less, if it's already in the operational plan, if that's what we're talking about. So I think that Shaun is going to have to... Yeah. Yeah. We're going to ask... He wants to report on it. We also have the opportunity to ask Shaun about what's happening with the brochure management plan four times a year when the operational plan comes out. So there's lots of opportunity, and there's lots of opportunity for us to gather this information. But I'm not quite sure that, you know, we're fulfilling what your desire to help, you know, the mom and pops that are dropping, you know, the kids off at the school right now, is probably not going to filter to them that this amendment. But so I just suggest that the status quo is actually okay, because it gives us, the councillors, lots of opportunity, and then we can tell those people that you're in touch with. So this is a long discussion about what's already happening, really.

03:50:00 So it doesn't matter if we... I'll support the amendment, but it's not going to... It actually is not that big of a change, is it? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'm going to support it. I think it's slightly different from the previous one in that, A, it links it to the operational plan, and B, it refers to, and any change to project delivery. So what we're dealing with here is probably when we do the operational plan, you know, the budget that comes out this month, we'll have one, two, three, or none projects resumed with this. We're not going to change the places where we want. So all it does is when we have our operational plan report, we just group specific projects under the title of municipal foreshore. And then it becomes transparent. I think the value... I think what Councillor Aronson is trying to achieve here is something similar to when we said we'd report on the TN agreement and the roadmap, is to get feedback that people

03:51:00 who were concerned about that said, oh, we're happy that you're going to keep on getting reporting. They may never look at it, but it gives them a sense of happiness that, yes, we're going to make the implementation of this transparent. So I'll support this one. Anyone else? Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: I just want to point out that the name of the plan is incorrect. Councillor Lorentson: Infrastructure Management Plan. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Noosaville Foreshore. Infrastructure. Infrastructure. Master Plan. Master Plan. Master Plan. Excuse me. Master Plan. Councillor Wilson: Are we happy to correct the name? Make that technical change, please. Councillor Finzel: Better be wise. Absolutely. We don't want to sit through it. Make that change, please. Infrastructure Management Plan. Noosaville Foreshore. Councillor Lorentson: Infrastructure. Master Plan. Master Plan. Thank you. Long afternoon. Infrastructure. No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Infrastructure. Master Plan. Master Plan. Master Plan. Here's the bills. Councillor Phillips: NFIMP.

03:52:00 Speaker 8: Not a very important one. It's the one afternoon. Councillor Wilson: It's been a long weekend. Not a very important one. Not a master plan again, was it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The title. The title. Just copy and paste. Yeah. Copy and paste it. Don't you lose. Excuse me. Councillor Wilson: Oh, yeah. Sorry. Sorry. Director Walsh: Infrastructure. It's happening. Councillor Wilson: There you go. Yay. Yay. Yay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is there anyone else who wishes to talk to the motion? Yes, please. Councillor Pindell. Councillor Finzel: Yes, indeed. It has been a long afternoon. Thank you, everyone, for your patience. Look, in support of, like, making sure that we have our beneficiaries, our community, at the centre of everything we do, out of respect to Councillor Lorentson and, you know, a lot of work that she's put into these amendments today.

03:53:00 And if this provides, you know, a dot point, adds that bit of reassurance, you know, and gives Councillors more opportunity to direct concerned community members to another aspect of where they can find open and transparent communications, I'm certainly all for that. So, I will support it. I think, also, if it's one more, you know, post in the journey that, you know, we can make sure that people can pause and review and be satisfied and that we engender trust that we are constantly putting our people at the centre of all decision-making, I'm more than happy to support this. I'm not sure that it actually, probably, I do believe there's a duplication, but in support of all the things that we've discussed around the table, I'm happy to support this today. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Anyone else wish to talk? Councillor Lorentson, please pose. Councillor Lorentson: I will. Um. I would like to acknowledge all the people in the room, and any opportunity we have

03:54:00 to build public trust, we should jump on it. Clear, consistent communication is essential for maintaining public trust. That's what D does. It tells the community we are listening. You might not have got it right the first time, but this time we are going over and above to try to rebuild your trust. Thank you for the conversation around the table, but again, I keep stressing, I am We need to respond to the people who have put us in these seats. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, I'll put the motion in favour. Councillor Wilson: Do we have any other? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't know. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank Council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we're just having a technical break. Let me know that the mayor is just sitting out for a moment and we can proceed with this.

03:55:00 Councillor Phillips: Can I just suggest that maybe at some stage a five minute break or not even two minutes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are we ready for five minute break? Councillor Finzel: Yes, please, Mr Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, thank you. Janelle Parsons: Thank you to staff.

04:01:00 Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: The Council amend the Foreshore Master Plan to include a clear, publicly accessible statement

04:02:00 showing the total number of existing and proposed car parks across the precinct, including designated and undesignated. Unmarked car parks, standard accessible motorcycle, scooter, loading and drop-off base with a net figure of overall loss or gain based on a precinct-wide audit. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have a seconder for that motion? Janelle Parsons: Happy to second.

04:03:00 Councillor Lorentson: I think one of the issues that have been raised to me by community is that it's really difficult to find in the document, in the Master Plan, just a statement, a transparent statement regarding net loss or gain of car parking across the precinct, so I've included this amendment. As part of the final document, there's some sort of clear statement that actually identifies what's existing, what's proposed, and to have included in that the numbers of designated and undesignated and unmarked car parks. We heard today around the table that a lot of the car parkings are informal, unmarked, and I just think we need to understand the cumulative loss of car parking across the precinct-wide context, not just about the Noosaville Foreshore Management Plan.

04:04:00 Again, just speaking to residents over the last few days, a lot of them have resorted to pulling up Google Maps, and some have physically gone out and started counting the car parks in frustration because they just didn't know where to access this information. That, to me, is a real challenge. We spoke volumes about the level of clarity that the Master Plan provides in regards to what is lost and what is gained. The amendment's not about stalling, and it's not even about criticising the design detail. It's simply just about transparency. I think my take home speaking with residents over the last week is that if a plan impacts public access, it's not just about transparency. It's got to be based on clear, publicly available data. So I hope you support this amendment.

04:05:00 It's simply about transparency. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Question. We've talked about unmarked and informal. Would another term appropriate for those sort of car parks be unproved, and that some may have just been creeping, people taking cars into areas, and if so, would that, in fact, be unproved? Director Walsh: That's correct, but properly, I'll point out, you said that there's a significant number of informal spaces. I think there's some. Some. So I don't think there's a significant number of informal spaces. I think I'll just need to weigh that. So the Master Plan at the moment deals with the provision of car parking and a precinct approach. For instance, when you look at quota park on page 29, there's these clear leaders that says, retain existing parking, include community available, and treat when you provide fuller spaces. There's another leader for the angled parking that says, retain existing on-street parking,

04:06:00 investigate time regulation, and build the status. So as you go through a precinct by precinct, the plan very clearly articulates the intention of where existing parking is to be retained. So I think the plan does it quite well at the moment, but noting that there will still be further examination at the detailed design stage, to examine the need for more disabled parking, make sure it's up to standard and the like. So just to say that I think the plan deals with it quite well, and it is clear on a precinct by precinct basis at the moment. Mayor Wilkie: Question. The wording of this is about providing a number of proposed car parks. Is this premature in the sense that you've yet to do the detailed design, so we don't know how many proposed car parks there will be? Director Walsh: So firstly, particularly in the original June 2024 plan, the overly designed one, there's actually a car parking strategy proposed as part of that, and there was a full audit of the existing number of car parking spaces, which I take to be 404 car parking spaces,

04:07:00 so that we know that are recognised in the plan. So if it is really up to a council to decide, do you want this level of detailed statement in the master plan? Or are you prepared to rely? I think it depends on the existing leaders that are actually embedded in the graphics of the plan on each of the different precincts. So I think it's just a technique, whether you want a more overt statement. Because the intention is to make, apart from Noosaville boat ramp, is to maintain the existing number of car parking spaces. Formed car parking spaces. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any other questions, or anyone else wishes to talk to the motion? Councillor Phillips: I'll speak to it just quickly. It would actually help me, I feel, a lot in answering questions. I was down there on Sunday meeting family at 10.30 for a barbecue, and no one could

04:08:00 find parks. But also, this was topical conversation, and I was like, how many car parks are actually going? And it is quite difficult. Without going to the leaders, which I have tried to do, Shaun, to go through, and I found it quite challenging for me to work out. So I feel like it actually would help us. We know that this was a huge part of the community's request was car park loss. It was a big one. And I think if we could have a real conversation. If we could have clarity, that would certainly help me feel better about the overall master plan moving forward. I think that's, let's be honest, that's been one of the biggest key parts for community is trying to get down there and find a park.

04:09:00 And if we take them away, they want to know what we're doing about more, you know, all the other leaders that we have not yet discussed. And then I can't help but think that we've got, you know, these proposals. We've got a proposal around time to parking workshops and things that are coming into the future, potentially. And this would help community with an understanding about the commitment to giving them access to the foreshore. I think it's, yeah, it's pretty reasonable to me, if possible, to have a number of total existing and proposed car parks across the precinct. Yeah, I'm quite happy to support that. I would like to know myself. Director Walsh: Through the Chair, I could suggest that, I think it's a reasonable request because that is the intent of the plan. Yeah. And can I suggest, and I could do this in preparation for the ordinary meeting, that we prepare an additional paragraph to be inserted under page 12 under understanding our assets

04:10:00 with a subheading called car parking that expresses this intent. So, and that would be explored as part of the detailed design phase. So, that could be, you know, to expand section understanding our assets on page 12. To have a clear paragraph about the intent of that car parking. If that would be a way to actually embed this in the master plan more clearly. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Just back to my original question about, you know, what happens in a master plan versus in detailed design. And when do things get locked in? I'm just thinking, does that then pose a real question? Is there a risk in the future or potential confusion in the future because, you know, we've said at this stage, this is how many parking spaces there will be. And then in the design phase, that changes and does that then cause a lack of trust in because you've already. Yeah. Director Walsh: I don't think we'd be able to commit to a figure of overall loss or gain.

04:11:00 We're just talking about the intent is to maintain the existing level of car parking provision to be assessed on a precinct by precinct basis, accordance with need for disabled parking, safety, you know, business demands at that time. So, we sort of generally state the principle, but we have some provisions there that we'd explore as part of the detailed design. And that would achieve both. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: So, just to clarify, you're saying we couldn't really abide by this amendment because it requests numbers. Yeah. And that figure of overall loss or gain based on the order. So, that's, they're talking about number providing, numbers of car parks now intended for the life of this 20-year master plan. That would make it very, that's a very difficult thing to quantify at this early stage. Director Walsh: I think we could say, Sabin, that there are currently 404 car parking spaces provided along the Noosaville foreshore.

04:12:00 Yeah. Because Council's, I'm just sticking off the top of my head, Council's intent is to have no net loss car parking, you know, across the precinct. Yep. But this will be assessed by precinct by precinct approach as part of the detailed concept design phase and consideration of road safety, business needs and desires, the provision of loading bays and drop off zones, the provision of disabled parking spaces. Mayor Wilkie: Right. So, the only number you could provide is the current level? The current level. Okay. But you can't commit to providing the overall loss or gain based on it? Director Walsh: We probably should articulate the loss of the 10 car parking spaces alongside the Thomas Street. Mayor Wilkie: In return for 18 motor scooters. Scooter packs. Yeah. Speaker 1: Isn't that it? And the fact sheet that's available on your, say, publicly available fact sheet says that most car parking spaces along the foreshore have been retained in the plan. One exception is where it's proposed to convert about 10 spaces on Gympie Terrace alongside the boat ramp into scooter and motorcycle parking. Mayor Wilkie: So that's already...

04:13:00 It's already there. Speaker 1: Yeah. On the fact sheet. Mayor Wilkie: Is it possible that over the 20 year life of this plan, as you do precinct by precinct planning, based on community feedback, there could be a greater gain or a greater loss of car parks other than what we understand at the moment? Director Walsh: Possible. And that's why I'm not committing to a future number, more or less. I'm just, I think it's just getting back to a statement of what is there at the moment. A statement. And then it can be considered and assessed at a later date. So to ensure whether the reason to reduce car parking or increase car parking is appropriate and in consideration of those competing factors. I should also include park amenity, you know, beauty, you know, so we should include that as well. As a factor that we consider. Councillor Wegener: I'll speak to it. It seems we have our parking strategy. We have our walking and cycling strategy. We have our transport strategy. We've got a lot going on with cars. And this just is focusing on what's happening now.

04:14:00 How many car parks do we have? One of the four. We know it. It's... We have a dynamic, evolving situation with how we'll do it. We know we're going to deal with parking and transport in the future. And I get a little bit frustrated with the foreshore management plan discussing about parking at all because it's actually, you're dealing with the foreshore management, not parking. But I think, so I think that this is, I won't throw out the motion because it's not important really. We know how many car parks are ordered for. We know that we don't want to lose more of them. But going down on a 20-year plan, well, not making massive changes is unsustainable with we know with the amount of population that's going to come. We probably should do like most every other smart city on the earth, working with car parking. Working with trying to figure out better ways to move people around, bike lanes, buses,

04:15:00 whatever. All the different things. There may be car park losses in the future, but that's something separate to the foreshore management plan. I don't want to, I have a hard time getting stuck in that when we, a 20-year plan, we're looking ahead for different ways, different opportunities, different ways of moving people around. Not cars, but people. Director Walsh: We've had lots of different views that the exercise is a master plan. The other approach could be, rather than that motion, is just to simply note council is in the process of preparing a parking management plan for municipal foreshore, which is correct. Which will provide the information and the display of parking provision along the municipal foreshore for further consideration by the public. So that would link it to the forthcoming piece of work, which has been well informed by this work. And you've still got the leaders and the precinct plans to keep, you know, when we come into the detail. But that gives security to people or the public about the process we're about to embark on.

04:16:00 That could be another way without changing the master plan at all. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Director Walsh: Thank you. Councillor Kinslow. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Yeah. I like the conversation around the table. And again, thank you, Councillor Lorenston, for bringing this. And it's really evokes a, you know, thought-provoking conversation. I like the idea put forward that you can put an extra heading in page 12 in the report to reiterate what we've got there. Again, I come back to this idea, you know, what are we here for? We're here to make sure that the beneficiaries of our governance, you know, gives us the social impact that we and our community want to see as we co-create together towards a future. Understanding also that the trends influencing car parking and everything along the lines of, you know, what Councillor Thom's brought to the table, this broader conversation across the whole of Shire. And this afternoon, you know, earlier on, I asked the question about car parking.

04:17:00 You answered that saying you did a spot survey. Then we went forward to find out that the cost of a detailed tech trial, you know, that'll be based on budget, $150,000 to again give us detailed plans. So given we're working within the framework of a, you know, living dynamic document, I won't support this. I fully understand where Councillor Lorenston and I want to respect where she's moving in that space. But I think we're all on that same page. Again, for replication and I don't know, trying to widen us out across the Shire as well. I think we're moving in the right direction. I think we've heard our community. You know, we're all working hard, each one of us, councillors and staff and the community to come together to, you know, connect with one another, listen and value our stories and work together towards a sustainable future for all. So I won't be stopping you.

04:18:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I concur with Councillor Widner is that this is a 20 year plan and I wouldn't be, even though this member doesn't talk about the lost car park. We know that our community at the moment, their main concern is availability of car parks and accessibility to a treasured recreational space. As time goes on, availability can be changed by a range of different measures, one of them being time controls. Instead of holidaymakers parking their car 24 hours a day in front of their unit, we have a car space that might have 12 or 20 cars parked in during the day. I also think that the thing we have to remember here is that some of the beneficiaries of this plan are the families of 10 to 15 years time.

04:19:00 They're the kids that we're currently hooning around that little e-box. So the probability that modes of transport will change during life as planned and that the private motor vehicle becomes less of the dominant transport are quite high. So I don't think we should be locking it in. I think I quite like the suggestion of just noting that the car park needs to be locked in. Mayor Wilkie: We've heard that there is great support for the principle of this being a living document. There's a 20 year time frame in terms of the designs that come out of it. It changes according to the designs that are done. On a more detailed precinct by precinct basis. It has a 20 year horizon. What I do support in this amendment is that we can accurately provide a clear statement about the total number of existing car parks.

04:20:00 We have that information. I'm in favour of providing as much information as possible about these things because it is of interest to the community. But what we can't do is provide a definitive number which is required by this amendment about what the final number will be in the future after community consultation. The community will help decide what that will be. And community values do shift over time. Community patterns of transport shift over time. So if this was an amendment that locked us into providing a statement of existing car parks. We can provide the facts on that. But had a looser ending about saying, explaining the approach to designating vehicle parks across the precinct into the future. As well as providing the existing number of car parks.

04:21:00 I would support it. The current wording I think it puts a straitjacket on the council in terms of what's possible. And what we can accurately share with the community at this point. So if there was another amendment. If this was to fail. And another amendment was to say. Amend the Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan to include a clear publicly accessible statement showing the total number of existing car parks across the precinct. And outlining the approach to designating vehicle parks across the precinct into the future. I would support it. But I can't support the wording of this. Even though I too and every councillor wants to provide clear information to the community. They understand that car parking is important. But this has to be a plan that takes into account what may fall out of community consultation into the future.

04:22:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Let's switch to this gentleman. Councillor Wilson: I'm just going to come back to that concept of the limited document. That it's not going to keep getting adopted. And therefore I just think there's a bit of a risk in putting a figure out there now that may change it. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Lowton. Councillor Lorentson: First I'll start with a question. We've already put out there that there's a net loss of 10 car parks in the Noosaville boat ramp. Is that correct? That's correct. That's correct. So I'm sitting here a little bit confused. In 2024 when we had the draft master plan. We had a statement. How many car parks? How many proposed? And what's the net loss? I don't know what's different this time around. So that's my first question. Data. I keep sitting here going. For us to sit around a table making decisions about the future. We need to have as much data as possible.

04:23:00 Our decisions are based on data. Understanding cumulative impacts. What happens when the future changes? When we start adjoining developments across Gympie Terrace. When we start giving them infrastructure agreements and allow them to pay X amount of dollars in lieu of car parks. We need to understand what does that mean as a precinct. Tourism. What's the future? We talk about future facing. I think about adjoining developments. Impact of visitation. And we currently don't. We've got to keep. I keep going back to. We've got to talk. As much as we'd love to talk about the Noosa of the future. The Noosa of today. We don't have alternatives. The community have made it loud and clear. They value their car parks. I don't know how much clearer they have to do that. We. Some of us were there when they were protesting at the tennis courts.

04:24:00 Don't take away our car parks. So the amendment is simple. But I feel that everyone's over thinking and making everything more complex than it is. Again, I keep saying the same thing over and over again. When you've got an opportunity to provide clarity. To provide the community a response to the questions that they're asking. And the question they're asking is, where do I find how many car parks and how many, how many are we going to lose in the future? That's what, that's what we're doing. Our job. Responding to community concerns about transparency and clarity. Understanding how important this issue is. So, I hope you rethink. It's not an onerous requirement. It's something we did in 2024. Director has said it's quite simple. He can embed it before the ordinary meeting. It's just not a big ask. We're not, we're not asking for setting ourselves in that situation.

04:25:00 We're asking for something rigid and committed. It's about, what does the draft plan at the moment tell us about car parking? And we've got C and all these other recommendations that identify that it's a living document. That it will be revised and will be updated. So again, take the opportunity to provide clear public communication to the community. Because we owe it to the community. We owe it to them. To build their trust. They don't trust us. And these, these are opportunities that I'm throwing in the form of amendments to help the community know that we are genuine. And I know we are genuine. I know we are genuine. I'm not saying otherwise. Mayor Wilkie: Point of order Mr Chair. Yes. Council's made a statement about the community not trusting us as a council. I think it's a statement. We've got a statement there. Councillor Lorentson: I'll retract that.

04:26:00 I'll retract that and I apologise. That's come out incorrectly. What I'd like to say is that this is an opportunity for us to continue building trust with our community. So thank you for pulling me up on that, Mayor Wilkie. That is retracted. So, so again, not onerous. I hope you support the amendment in front of us. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I put the vote. Those in favour? Cancel the vote. Councillor Phillips, those opposed is Councillor Wilkie, Finzel, Wendell Wilson and Stockwell and the amendment has been lost. Mayor Wilkie: While the iron is hot, can I propose an amendment similar to that one? If you bring that last one up. Speaker 6: The last one? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Okay. Because I'll be using part of the wording.

04:27:00 Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, so could you highlight, amend the Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan to include a clear publicly accessible statement showing the total number of existing, existing? Yeah. Highlight that. And cut and paste that to be the start of amendment.

04:28:00 That is the start. An amendment. That is the start. That is the start. Okay. All right. Total number of existing and get rid of everything after the highlight. That's it. Mayor Wilkie: Deleted. The rest of that, yeah. Existing car parks currently available and outline the approach to designating vehicle parks across the precinct into the future.

04:29:00 Precinct into the future. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to second that. Mayor Wilkie: Across the precinct, vehicle parks across the precinct into the future. Councillor Wilson: Can I suggest, are we going to be doing manned car parks? Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Yes. So, Councillor Wilson has picked out an extra word that doesn't need to be there, so get rid of the word existing. Councillor Lorentson: Here? Mayor Wilkie: Get rid of the word existing. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Happy to second. And Councillor Lorentson's picking up the council. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Look, we've interrogated this in the last amendment. This goes to the heart of what can be provided. We have accurate data on the existing number of car parks and we

04:30:00 can outline the approach to the vehicle parks across the future. I think this, if I understood correctly, this is what Councillor Lorentson would like. It was aimed at the vehicle parks. It's not a number that we're looking for, the clear public accessible statement about this issue. And this doesn't lock us into a final number, but it will explain clearly the approach to that going into the future. So I don't think I need to say anything. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it's a preferable approach in that there is a lot of uncertainties about what could or couldn't occur. So, for example, Councillor Lorentson in the last debate mentioned about development approvals. We had one recently where we actually created more car parks by closing off at access and then that development approval also nominated a number of motorcycle car parks that would be provided on the southern side of Gympie Terrace. What might be an option if that proceeds

04:31:00 is that if we then do the widened footpath that we could actually swap the motorcycle paths over to the other side of the road and bring the car parks onto the southern side of the road? There are all these different detailed designs that shouldn't be part of the consideration. And I think this is suitably strategic enough in its approach that it won't create future problems. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wegener. Question. Approach. When you say approach, do you mean like the wide definition of approach, like the different plans we're going to go about, how we're going to think about it, bicycle ways, all, you know, Brian's ideas? Is that what you mean by approach? Mayor Wilkie: Well, I mean, as we've heard, there's going to be more detailed design that needs to be done for each of the areas across the foreshore. And there'll be community consultation, there'll be inputs from different stakeholders. That all has to be taken into approach. So I'm hoping that that could be part of the statement.

04:32:00 So it's a wide approach. Yes. And it doesn't lock us into a set number because we don't know that number. Councillor Wilson: Just speaking back to this wording before, it was all about the intent. So is it the intended approach? Mayor Wilkie: The intended approach. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are we happy to include the word intended, everyone? Director Walsh: I'd be pleased to supply a paragraph tomorrow for councillors. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. I'm happy to include the word intended if councillors are, yes, explain the approach. Thank you. I'm happy with that Mr Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is there anyone else happy? Councillor Finzel: I just have a question, do we need to be, I don't know, say the total number of car parks, don't we already have that public available online?

04:33:00 Director Walsh: It was in the material distributed originally with the June 2024 version and it has been contained on fact sheets but that material will probably fade into the background. So if you want that statement to be encapsulated in this master plan it would be good to state it in this document. Councillor Lorentson: So my question is do we need the amendment or not? Or will you make the inclusion of that paragraph before Thursday's meeting? Director Walsh: I think that that amendment gives us plenty of scope and then I don't think we should be in the period between now and the ordinary meeting wordsmithing a couple of paragraphs. So I think that would be a bit torturous just to be frank. But I'm happy to have a first crack at it. But I don't think we should make your resolution on Thursday contingent.

04:34:00 I think we can have a bit of time to think about it to make sure it captures everything you'd like to be in that statement. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Other questions or people wishing to talk to the amendment? No. Councillor Wilkie do you wish to close? No, thank you. I'll put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. Do we have any other amendments? Councillor Lorentson. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: That any redesign of parking areas within the national park. Precinct must result in no net loss of publicly available parking spaces including car parks. I might get rid of including designated, undesignated, unmarked car parks.

04:35:00 And just make it read that any design of parking areas within the Noosa Foreshore Precinct must result in no net loss of publicly available parking spaces including car parks, motorcycle, scooter bays, PWD spaces and loading or drop off zones unless an equivalent or greater number of spaces is reallocated with individual parking spaces. And clearly identified during the detailed design phase. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy what's on the screen is what... Councillor Lorentson: Oh, sorry, Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Management Plan.

04:36:00 I'm looking at the... I'm looking at the... Councillor Wilson: Oh, no, no, no. Oh, no, no, no. Oh, OK. It's just the area up there. Mayor Wilkie: It's the area, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: I'd actually like to include including designated and undesignated or unmarked parking. So could you add... You just took that out? Yep, can I add it back in, please? And undesignated or slash unmarked.

04:37:00 Thank you. Thank you, yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, do we have a seconder? Councillor Lorentson: I'll be the second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Phillips Lawrence, do you have a second? Councillor Lorentson: One of the strongest and most consistent messages from the community throughout this process has been the need to retain existing parking, not simply for convenience, but to ensure equitable and practical access for all users. This includes our older residents, our mobility impaired individuals, families with young

04:38:00 children and boaties with trailers who require proximity. To water and green space. Noosa is a regional town not a high density inner city environment. Unlike cities with extensive public transport infrastructure, our community still relies heavily on private vehicles. Unless council has realistic, accessible and fully operational infrastructure and transport alternatives in place such as frequent and reliable public transport. The proposed removal of car parks, and we've had the discussion,

04:39:00 particularly I want to talk about the 10 bays near the boat ramp on the Guilby Terrace, does not, in my opinion, reflect the lived reality of how this space is used. There is no clear data justifying the change, no pedestrian safety audit, no parking demand analysis, and no demonstrated evidence that removing car parks is necessary to improve safety or accessibility. Claims that these spaces must be lost to achieve a wider accessible pathway, I question. Current path meets or exceeds minimum standards and a three metre width could be accommodated perhaps without any parking lost. The question I keep asking myself is who are we designing for? The proposed additional scooter and motorcycle parking often sits empty while families, grandparents, fishers and long time locals, the people who define and use this space daily, are left with fewer options.

04:40:00 You can't strap a tinny to an e-scooter and you can't expect a 75 year old resident to walk 500 metres from a distant lot just to reach the foreshore. Expecting nearby residential streets to absorb trailer parking is equally unrealistic and unfair. Councillors, I think we just have to be really careful that we're not designing for a version of Noosa that doesn't yet exist. Removing car parking without a viable alternative penalises the very people this foreshore is meant to serve and will only lead to congestion, frustration and reduced access. The amendment in front of us is about protecting functionality and fairness and responding to the outcry our community has had, the outcry from our community and the outcry from the

04:41:00 people who are not willing to take away their car parks. This isn't just about preserving parking spots, but it's about ensuring that any future plan remains grounded in the lived reality of our community. Mayor Wilkie: Just a question. If I read this, this actually allows the increase in car park and vehicle spaces from 10 to 18 on Gympie Terrace. Is that the intention of this? No. Councillor Lorentson: Where do you read that, Frank? Mayor Wilkie: Well, no net loss of publicly available parking spaces including designated and un-designated unmarked car parking, motorcycle and scooter bays. So we're actually increasing the publicly available number of parking spaces from 10 to 18 in front of the boat ramp. I don't know if that's the intent.

04:42:00 Councillor Lorentson: Oh, excuse me. No, it's not. So can we take out motorcycles for your bays? There's just no net loss of publicly available parking spaces including designated and un-designated unmarked car parking. Councillor Wilson: Get rid of the motorcycle scooter bays? Councillor Lorentson: Yep. And loading and drop off zones. Councillor Wilson: Okay. This is PWA. Accessible spaces. Yep. Accessible spaces. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So is councillors happy with that change to the moved and second motion? Mayor Wilkie: I have another question. Does the inclusion of a disability parking space require more space than one? Director Walsh: Yes. Since the development of this pre-secondary provision of disabled parking spaces, there's been significant changes.

04:43:00 The disabled parking standards. You need a shared space beside each car parking space. So for instance, two disabled car parking spaces usually require three car parking spaces. That's correct. Mayor Wilkie: So the inclusion, if we wanted to include more disability car parking spaces, we'd actually have a net loss of car parking spaces. And we'd have to find more space for that. That's correct. Councillor Lorentson: Can I request some help with the wording that acknowledges that PWD accessible spaces, with the exception of PWD accessible. Okay. With the exclusion of the e-net loss.

04:44:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. You've moved and taken a motion. We've done one more. I believe that. Look, I'll speak to it. Everything on the way through, I'm not willing to keep going with this. Sure. That's all right. Mayor Wilkie: I don't think it'll change. I understand what Councillor Lorentson is trying to achieve. I just don't. I think a motion like this, an amendment like this needs more work. Because I understand it's contrary to what the Councillor was trying to achieve in regarding to an increase in vehicle, in parking spaces. Because motor scooters are also classified as vehicles. And also, it would preclude us from including more disability car parking spaces. They require extra parking spaces. They require more space than a standard. And it would result in a net loss, which is contrary to the intention of this. And I'm sure we're all wanting to make this as an accessible place as possible.

04:45:00 I know Councillor Lorentson, and as all Councillors are, are mindful of improving access for all abilities. And this would not be the intention of this amendment. So I can't support it. Because I think the wording. So a bit more work. Councillor Wilson: Councillor Wilson. I also can't support it. I'm just still coming back to this as a 20-year plan. Things will change over time. People, the types of vehicles people use may change over time. They may even become bigger. So that we don't have to make parking spaces bigger. And that, again, would cause a loss. And yeah, I think we can't set this in stone now. But not knowing what will happen in the next 20 years. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Other questions? I'm not going to repeat everything I've said previously, which would argue against this. I only have to say that we've been through a very significant development phase on this.

04:46:00 We've come up with what I think is a reasonable compromise, which largely achieves a minimal impact on existing provisions. And I think it's a reasonable compromise. I think the key is that when the community say they don't want to lose car parks, they're saying, we're finding it difficult to find a car park. And we don't want it to be any more difficult. Whereas the car parking management plan will consider time control, which should make a significant difference in the availability of car parks. And that's achieving it. It's not just the raw number of car parks that will determine the availability of car There is a mix of things. The first one is time control. The next one is potential of paid parking for visitors with residents and permits. A whole host of different levers that could be considered into the future that would achieve a better result than just saying we're just going to keep the same number of car parks.

04:47:00 I'm very concerned about the inclusion of unmarked car parks. Because as I say, some of these are things that have done by truth without any approval. And shouldn't be there. They create unsafe. They've been created to provide ease of access generally, I think, some of them to businesses. Okay? So if it's not formally approved car parks, why would we seek to do the same? I'm not saying that's definitely the case. I'm saying it's highly likely that some of these car parks in the park itself, that are unmarked, are because they've never been approved. And it would be a contrary to good practice to actually then say that they are unmarked. I think the appropriate way to go. And it's right. The overwhelming feedback was car parking is an issue. One of the statements Councillor Lorentson made is actually quite interesting. In one of the few places in Queensland, on Gympie Terrace, that has a high frequency bus

04:48:00 service every 15 minutes. Brisbane City, inner city. And this was for sure the only two places in Queensland when we first looked at it. Not sure what's changed. Now we're looking at it. We're looking at it now. And what we need to do is work on the culture of this residence. About when it is appropriate to use that 15 minute bus service. Certainly if you're going on a full day picnic and packing three kids, it's not. If you're going for a leisurely walk and a coffee, maybe packing that's who it is. So there's a range of things that will change over the life of this plant. And specifying this outcome, I don't believe is a rational interpretation of what's going on. I think the rational interpretation was included in the last one. But we've got this many. And we're going to a car parking management strategy. We're going to give details and signs. But the most important thing is there is current problems with car parking.

04:49:00 And there is current conflicts in the prioritisation of cars and people using the car space. And where the community sentiment will change is if we don't get it quite done and we do have serious incidents. And that's what we need to do. Then why didn't Council do something about it? So we have to look at it from a broad perspective and I don't think this does. Anything else we've got? Councillor Lorentson. Move to close. No. I've put the result of the amendment. That is in favour. Councillor Philipson. Councillor Lorentson. Those against. Councillor Wilkie. Kinzel. Wagner, Wilson and Stockwell. The amendment hasn't been carried. Do we have any more? Councillor Phillips: I've got one amendment that I'd like to attest please. Um, Vicky you've got the second one. It's just the um, the slipway pre-tint please. Um. I'm sorry.

04:50:00 I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Councillor Phillips: Um, thanks. So my amendment is that item A be amended to read, approved the final Noosaville-Foreshore infrastructure large-scale plan, provided in Attachment 1, subject to one, revert the design approach from the Maslow Slipway and Jetty in Eli Park to that shown on the consultation version endorsed by Council at it's meeting of the 6th of November, 2024 which was the special meeting. And just to be, I already, I'm going to, I actually snipped it, I screenshot or snipped the receipt for everyone's information so you can actually see what I'm talking about.

04:51:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor, we need to, do you think we need to second that? Councillor Phillips: Yeah, good point, I'll second it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilson? Yeah. Councillor Phillips: Okay, thank you. It's easier if it's up on the screen, Vicky, so would you mind bringing up the last email I sent you, which is, I'll return this to you. Yes, please. Director Rawlings: Except the one in, oh, okay, yep. Councillor Phillips: So there'll be three different, I just want to, so everyone can understand where we're at. This is the last email I sent you? Yep, so this was the proposal for this precinct in the June 2024 amendment, okay? I'm going to take you on a journey. So this is the 2024 June, which is most of the car park loss inside around the slipway with a loading zone there. Vicky, can you bring up the next one from the special meeting, please?

04:52:00 Oh, okay. So that's the June 2024. Speaker 9: Yeah. Councillor Phillips: This is the special meeting one. Okay. This is the one that we endorsed to go to community at the, the special meeting last year. You can see that there was, from what I understand, it was, there was a conversation from staff with the commercial operators where they came to an agreement that Sean spoke to on that they require some car parking inside for staff. And so they agreed that this concept suited them. It had the loading zone that was safe for the operators and it retained some car parking. I believe that there was no net loss, but it was just the configuration that was specifically more user-friendly for the people that are down there every single day. So that was indoor, that was the one that went out to consultation. Now, the one that we see today is today's, yeah, which I had sent you as well.

04:53:00 Councillor Wilson: Okay, that's okay. Speaker 9: Maybe I, now I can, I can, maybe, can I, okay, I'll just bring that up, yes. Councillor Phillips: Oh, sorry, we've had to, we've had to, yeah, sorry. Director Rawlings: No, it's all right, yeah, it's all right, yeah, I can see that, you know, like that is fine. Okay. Hang on. Councillor Phillips: I can even tell you. Director Walsh: Yeah, so, Councillor, I just want to correct that it's the first version there, that's actually, that's actually in the current master plan. Councillor Phillips: It's reverted back to that, has it? Director Walsh: That's correct. Councillor Phillips: I think it was slightly different.

04:54:00 Director Walsh: So, this, just to clarify, if you leave that up, okay, if you're correct, this is what was endorsed for public consultation in May of 2024. In the special meeting? Yep. This is actually what's shown in the current version of the master plan before you do that. Councillor Phillips: Okay, and I did send through the original one from June, which. Director Walsh: The original one was all descriptive again. Yes. So, okay. So. Councillor Phillips: Does it help everyone to see then from today to the one that went out to consultation in November? Speaker 1: I can send you the screenshot. Yeah. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. You know, in 2000, which one was that? Director Walsh: Was it 80%? So, this, through the chair, if I could just swipe this. Sure. This arrangement actually reflects pretty bold of you guys at the moment. So, if you know. The pathway actually intersects the moving area for the cars. So, there were conflict points.

04:55:00 And subsequent to this being on consultation, there was discussions with a couple of the operators there. And they wanted to see better separation between the pathway and the slipway to actually better accommodate safety and environmental issues and the like. And also were concerned with the overall conflict. So, subsequent to that. This is what was being prepared by staff. And basically what it does is it swaps the internal car parking actually within the park. And actually it changes the angle parking of the street so that the cars don't go into the park. And better resolves the interface with the slipway by actually having more room for better landscape separation. But it still allows a driveway for, you know, specific vehicle use for access. So. Now, Chris Massot rang me this morning. And did Matt Mulligan from Soil and Genies. And upon reflection, they prefer to go back to the original.

04:56:00 So, staff efforts were trying to resolve what they thought. But upon further reflection, they would like to go back to the original which was shown here. Now, I note that this subject to the resolution as we're seeing, this is going to be subject to detailed design. So, and these issues are going to be interrogated in a lot more detail. And I do note that the existing leader, there's a leader there, says optimised car parking. You know, so that it forecasts that there is forecast to be a design process for actually looking at it again. So, I just want to note that this was a design change actually came as a result of discussions with the community. Perhaps they've changed their mind or they've reflected upon it further. And I would like to go back to what was actually displayed to the board and community on that day. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Question. Mayor Wilkie: Can I ask a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, because Councillor Phillips has sort of started talking and then. Mayor Wilkie: Right. No. My apologies. Okay.

04:57:00 Councillor Phillips: So. My amendment to it, I understand again, I respect that there will be detailed design. But the reason why I'm bringing this on is because I think it's very important. As a specific amendment is really to respect heritage along that foreshore and appreciate the commercial businesses that provide employment to so many people. You know, that area isn't just the slipway. I don't know if anyone's been to Depot, a coffee shop that keeps expanding because the community absolutely loves their coffee and food. Right. It is out of control because it's great food. That little bit. I'm there every second day. And it is a bustling, fun, great precinct in Noosaville. And the thing that I can't help but.

04:58:00 All we're going to do when we reduce car parking is they will go and park in residential streets. And then there will be complaints about. We parked seven cars on Sunday from our family down at residential street because we couldn't find a car parking. We filled up a residential street with my brother's large vehicles because they're tradies. They own utes. I'm sorry. This is not going to change. I am the ideology of people not driving vehicles. It's. I can't. I can't support that. That will happen. I'm sure we can encourage behavior change when there's more public transport. And I'm not saying that that's a bad thing. That won't happen. But the community made it really clear that they want to be able to access their workplaces. I'm not even talking about the people down to enjoy the foreshore. I'm actually talking about the economic part of our foreshore right now.

04:59:00 So it's actually not about the car spaces right now. It's about the jobs and the day to day reality of the working people. So the business is operating in this precinct. They're not temporary pop ups. They are long standing commercial operators. Many whom have served this community for decades. They employ local trades people, marine workers, and service people. People who need to be physically on site with some tools, equipment, and sometimes early starts. So removing staff or car parking from this area, it's not just inconvenient. In my opinion, it's actually economically reckless. We've all participated in these car park workshops. We've all participated in these car park workshops. We've all participated in these shop management workshops. And we've acknowledged that staff car parking is essential to the functioning of commercial precincts. If we remove these spaces without viable alternatives, then we're not solving the problem. We're displacing it. Workers will be pushed into surrounding residential streets, increasing congestion, prostration

05:00:00 from residents, and creating new enforcement burdens. And with the time to parking, as we were discussing earlier, there's a lot of work to be done. We may risk that it is impossible for staff to park legally for a full shift. I just put this up because it is one that highlights to me the areas that could potentially be, and again, in detail design, I'd like to see it revisited, but the community in that area are saying we really need it to remain as it is. Mayor Wilkie: Can we have those two comparisons up again, please?

05:01:00 This will be a question for staff. Looking at the roadside car parking. This is parallel parking along here. That's correct. So is that approximately, would you say, three spaces? Three, yeah. Looking here, converting to angle parking, you've got a set of scooter parks. There is... Director Walsh: So my understanding for the design... Mayor Wilkie: You've got a lot here. Yeah. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,

05:02:00 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. It looks like there's an increase in car parking. Director Walsh: So the advice from Dean and consultants was that they were confident they could achieve no net loss of car parking spaces along there. Yeah. It was just the configuration, rather than having to drive into the park land to see the park. Yeah. You were able to, like many other areas of Hindi Terrace, you'd use the road network to manoeuvre into the space. Yes. And that provided capacity for space. Yes. For resolving the pedestrian cyclist conflict with cars moving into that space. Yeah. It provided space to perhaps move the pathway so you could set up better landscape buffers around the Maso Sipway. And also, still acknowledge that there would be occasional delivery driveway, as Sean said, under management control, which is a much less risk environment than having

05:03:00 all those cars into the space. So there is, from what I understand, there is only one designated car parking space, given that we're a long-standing arrangement, one of those businesses. The rest are parking for people. So any person can drive into that space and park at the moment. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. And currently, the current arrangements, you've got cars reversing over the parking space. That's right. To get out. Director Walsh: Yeah. That's correct. Now, that's a long-standing arrangement that's been there forever and a day. And I do get the point that that was what was put out to the public for consultation. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Director Walsh: Part of the reason for the change was actually following discussions with these same stakeholders. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Director Walsh: So we've actually come up with a more lateral solution, which provided better separation. So I'm ambivalent either way. So because when it comes to detailed design of this space, we're going to have to... Speaker 1: This could be revisited. Director Walsh: This could be revisited because it's all about trying to come up with the best outcome.

05:04:00 There could be other solutions which are even better. And I take the point that as a sign of, you know, if they hadn't approached us, we probably wouldn't have changed it. We changed it in response to them talking to us. And then they'll come back and change their mind again. So the fact we've got a leader there that says optimised car parking, you know, is enough of a point to say, look, we need to explore this in a much more detailed sense. And it's not like we've got any budget to actually do anything with this space anyway at the moment either. So it's not like there's a burning platform. We could probably improve the safety side each about, you know, being very careful. Mayor Wilkie: And is the heritage of the slipway respected through this? What regard is given to the heritage of the slipway? Director Walsh: I can't... So the notion of if we're protecting the slipway for heritage, we're protecting its right to be used. So... And they have requirements, you know, because they undertake sanding and, you know, low

05:05:00 level activities. They have requirements for separation and screening. So the consultant's view is this amended approach gives us more flexibility that provide better buffering to protect the slipway from adjacent observers and protect the ongoing functionality of the integrated slipway. Mayor Wilkie: Do you think that the operators understand that there's actually... It looks like there's actually more car parks in that area as it goes towards... Director Walsh: I wasn't... And Dean Arnold was away at the moment, so I can't speak in detail about the expansion of the slipway. But I think there's some kind of information between the life of the parties during that time. So, yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. And this is the precinct where buses, which now cost 50 cents to access it, are going on every 15 minutes. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I'm going to speak to this. I'll make a couple of references to ideological pass me by.

05:06:00 But in the case... Of course, the logic is so egregious to me in this. It's not ideological. And this is sound planning principles that have been adopted across the world for many years. It's not you. The argument that a business would want their staff to car park close to the business on the river is cutting your nose off to spite your face. The last thing you want is long-term parking, packing up your customers' car bags. Staff, generally, should be... Have an option of having an option of having an option of having an option of having an option in which's 100 metres away. To suggest that we have to cater for a business that's growing, when we did the news of a foreshore management plan, that was all about concerns of the community, how commercial enterprises were taking over land outside their leased area, including their leased area, for other than the marine industries that they're approved for. So we came up with a compromise saying that the little coffee shops can be ancillary to

05:07:00 the marine industries. So it's a very small compromise. All of these are small size which they're allowed. So we probably don't want to hear that they're growing all the time. But to me, this is about what a park is for. And I certainly used the park before those car parks were there. And I certainly, when my children were alone, had the confidence of having to negotiate small kids riding little bikes and people reversing in and around them. It's clearly a poor design option. So I think we have to be really clear that the purpose of the municipal foreshore management plan is to maintain and improve the public foreshore. Yes, we do have a range of very long standing marine industries and I've enjoyed it. I've enjoyed going down there for a coffee. But it's not the primary driver. Providing access to allow them to run their business and get tradespeople in is satisfied

05:08:00 with the second design. Having car parks. Closed to them so their customers can come in and out if they want to get a coffee or hire a boat. But it's not to provide staff car parking in a park. I know one of my associates who has a business office across the road was complained about losing a car park, so they car park across the road in the car park. Car parks in a park should be closed using the park. And so I think it's really important that we look at what is the best outcomes for the safety of people using the car park. And try and minimise the impact on total overall usage. It's not ideological, it is sound planning to try and encourage people to take active or public transport. It is a key initiative in a number of documented council strategies and it's key to reducing our footprint so that we have a river and a foreshore that's usable for future generations.

05:09:00 Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Others wish to talk? I will. Councillor Wilson: I would say that the sign on the left looks safer and more consistent with the rest of the parking lot of the foreshore. It does seem to have no net loss. But I do go back to the original point that in the community engagement with the sign on the left, there was no net loss. The right was given and there's been feedback since then on whether that would actually work for the operations that need access. So I will support the motion. But just noting safety concerns because I have seen all these kids have a few near misses around there as they pile up the cars and the cars are moving. So I do have some concerns on the safety aspects but I will support it for the broader commercial

05:10:00 reasons. Councillor Wegener: This is a living plan, where, you know, optimization. Are we micromanaging this? Because, like, it's not set what's going to happen now. With this, this isn't set in stone. Director Walsh: Neither of these. Councillor Wegener: I don't, it seems to me if it's not set in stone, we don't, this is not an amendment that needs to be passed. Is that right? Director Walsh: I think it's about what Council's preference is to graphically show on the plan, whether it's, you know, the one that was shown in November of 2024, or the one that we've presented to you more recently as part of the report, which is on the left there, which indicates a long-term safer approach. And it indicates an appetite for Council to change the approach to make it safer in the long term. Mayor Wilkie: Question, was it the... The owners of the slipway is part of the consultation that pointed out the safety aspects of our cars reversing across the park.

05:11:00 Director Walsh: I don't know whether it was the owner of the slipway, but it has come out from various conversations from other people as well. Mayor Wilkie: Look, in order to move this along, I'm looking at these two plans, I'm taking on board the fact that the one on the left, which appears to have the same, if not even more, car parks, was developed after consultation with the slipway owners, and also... Director Walsh: In response to issues they raised. Mayor Wilkie: In response to issues they raised, as well as the general public. It doesn't, it addresses the very concerning issue of cars reversing across a public pathway, which is a safety issue that needs to be taken very seriously. I see the heritage of the slipway is respected. It can continue to operate.

05:12:00 There is ample parking, more, in my, just looking at these diagrams, more parking created on the road via the provision of angle parking. And taking on board the fact that this is going to be consulted on again, I just think I cannot support a plan that has fewer in this precinct. It looks like fewer car parks, and it has safety issues, and this design on the left is superior, and it has taken on board issues raised by the slipway owner. But I'll be very interested to hear what happens when the further detailed design happens for this precinct, and I'll respect that as well. But looking at it, clearly there's no net loss of car parking, and maybe even more, which has been thrust of what we've been talking about previously.

05:13:00 It has to be seen in the context, perspective of the whole precinct, which has 404 car parks. So that has to be taken into account. So I'll be supporting the design on the left, which on the face of it looks far more sensible. Councillor Finzel: I just need a question to Councillor Jess to clarify your motion. Which one is it supporting, the one with the red square? The one that they, the commercial operators want, which is the one on the right. Right, and they spoke to you today, and they said that's the one they want to go back. And Shaun. And Shaun, and that is to promote that they want that in the imagery. Councillor Phillips: The work at the precinct and the one that they, on reflection, the one that they, on the left, it doesn't allow that. It makes it harder on the entire business of getting equipment on and off the jetty.

05:14:00 And they've gone into detail with Shaun and Dean over how hard it is to function, you know, operate those businesses. So they're saying, you know, and these are busy people. So I can understand how the mis... Sorry, you asked your question, because I'll close later. Have I answered your question? Councillor Finzel: Okay, yeah. So just to clarify, it is about the intent to have that initial one printed in the document. So that's what we're really, is that your intent that we're looking for today? Yeah. Okay, if that's the case, thank you for the clarification. I will support that, so that imagery goes out. Noting also, again, that it is open, you know, back to community consultation. We see there's a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, you know, with the community engagement. It is a living document. It's flexible. I'm happy to support the business owners there if they've reached out and said, we want that imagery, you know, back on that document.

05:15:00 I'm happy to support that. Councillor Lorentson: Question to, through the Chair, please. Yes. Is there any net loss of car parking in the preferred option? Director Walsh: So the advice from the Dean and the consultants is that there's more than adequate space to ensure there's no net loss of car parking. Councillor Lorentson: In either scenario. Director Walsh: In either scenario. I would suggest that some of the issues they're having with servicing the area is the fact that there's staff parking there all day, making their trucks difficult to come in and out. And the benefits of the amended approach on the left is that it actually provides a dedicated area for them. So free from parking intrusion. So I just thought I'd note that. So it could actually be today betterment in some respects. But it requires more detailed design. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Are you saying that they can park here? Yeah. Or they can park here for longer instead of waiting for the cars? That's, that's. Then that would be a better time. Councillor Phillips: That's a loading day though. And they've got to take equipment from both those jetties all the way down to there.

05:16:00 And at the moment they take it straight off into the, so it's, it's actually operationally beneficial for workplace health and safety for them operating business the way it is currently designed. Because they can get the truck right next to them. Councillor Wegener: So do you think that they take the truck across the outdated area? Councillor Phillips: Yeah. No, in that, in that particular area. Yeah. Which is proposed to be for us, I think, all the. Director Walsh: Yeah. So there, there is a lot of licence with the way they use that space with trucks. Yes. And when you look back at the primary function of the foreshore, which is the recreation space, you're basically encouraging a solution which actually encourages vehicle and truck and . Whereas our view from a design perspective, the design on the left, sets up a more arrangement. And, and it will require change of operating arrangements for those, you know, operators. So to unload a truck and put it on a jetty, or to put it on a trolley, and, you know, safely

05:17:00 manoeuvre equipment across, rather than the assumption that they can, you know, park across the bikeway or park, you know, near the jetty as they would do the same thing. So. Councillor Lorentson: I'll support the amendment in front of us. I think it just responds to community feedback, in particular, to the businesses that are going to be impacted by any design change. Given just the discussion in front of us, that it doesn't really pose any real issue, which design is actually presented in a master plan. There's a clear understanding that the document can be updated. There's a clear understanding that the document can be updated. And changed at any time. So, again, any opportunity to allow community to know that we're listening, this is one of them. So I'm happy to support what's in front of us.

05:18:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. I didn't wish to speak. Councillor Phillips. You're closed. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. I think for me, it just comes down to, you know, I think staff can probably agree with it's really hard when someone external tells you how to do your job right. And I know that in policing, when external people tell me how policing should be done. And for me, when I look at any of the, any areas along the precinct, all I do is walk and use it for recreational and buy coffee. But if I want to know what to do for the, from the precinct level around what needs to be done, my first priority is what the people in the precinct need to know about what they need to keep it alive, what they need to keep it operating. You know, otherwise we're, we're getting, to me, a little bit of changes around, well,

05:19:00 what does the foreshore look like in 20 years? I would hope loud and clear the community have said we really like it how it is. So I'm just, you know, we've kept talking about 20 years, but in the, it references that it's not just 20 years. There's changes coming in eight years, 14 years and 20 years, or that's the way it's sort of projected. So it isn't just something that we can't, we've got to stop saying it's just 20 years. There will be changes that we see fairly soon. And for me, it's just about saying, well, I'm not going to go in and tell a commercial operator how to do business. I'm going to listen to them. I would do it in every part of the precinct. I'm going to think who, if we go to Pirate Park, let's hope we don't engage with the, you know, the people that don't use Pirate Park about what kids want at a park. So let's engage with the people that use each and every bit along the foreshore. And this is why this amendment is up today, because I'm just saying they're the main operators

05:20:00 of that area. And let's respect their history and acknowledge the work that, you know, that their community members. They deserve to be heard. So I hope you can support the amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've put the amendment. Those in favour? That's Councillor Lorentson, Phillips, Finzel, Wegener and Wilson. Those against? Councillor Wilkie and Stockwell. The amendments carried. Do we have any other amendments? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'm going to just reword an amendment that I've put forward before. Vicky, I thank you. I hope you've emailed it to you. That any redesign of. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the standing orders will prevent you from moving amendments substantially similar to one that has been refused before. Oh. This is about that one.

05:21:00 Councillor Lorentson: No, just the, yeah, just the no met loss of publicly available car park. Just tweak everything. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can we expect a prevent from moving something substantially similar to one that has been Councillor Lorentson: I have another amendment that prior to any detailed design or construction of the proposed new wetlands west of the slipway at Chaplain Park, Council undertake a risk assessment including commissioning an independent environmental impact assessment and hydrology report. These reports must demonstrate that the wetland proposal does not increase risk to the health

05:22:00 of the river and health risk, for example mosquitoes and cane toads, or flooding risk to nearby residents or the broader community. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have a second of that motion? Councillor Finzel: I'm happy to second the debate. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Finzel? Councillor Morrison? Vicky, you've left out some word. So these reports must demonstrate that the wetland proposal does not increase risk to the health of the rivers, risk to the health of the river, health risk, or flooding risk. So it just does not increase risk to the health of the river. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: At the end of that... Councillor Lorentson: Oh, okay, then does not. I'm happy with that. Councillor Wilson: Increase risk to the health of the river, health risk and flood risk.

05:23:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I think take that because the sentence as it was on the screen said these reports must demonstrate the wetland proposal does not increase health risk or flooding risk to nearby residents or the broader community. So it's just delete. Councillor Wilson: Yeah, because you had, the words are still in there aren't they that you want to say? Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Just if you delete health risk and flooding risk at the end, I think it catches everything. Can I start with Council's environment strategy? There's a section that commits to avoiding and mitigating environmental community risk.

05:24:00 Community have raised a couple of their concerns about the proposal to transition part of Chapman Park into wetlands. Acknowledging that ecological restoration does bring benefits, their concerns are about increased mosquito, sandfly activity and concerns about increased risk to the health of the river, oysters and overall biodiversity. In terms of whether or not chemical controls are used or not. Or introduced into the wetlands and risk assessment means that we can sort of understand unintended impacts on our aquatic ecosystems and also in terms of health risk and flooding risk.

05:25:00 So altering the landscape and these are just issues again raised by community that if you start altering the landscape there may be unintended consequences for drainage and local isolation. The park already at the moment is in the low lying land and the idea or request for a hydrology report is simply so that we understand what impact these changes might have in future storm events. Both reports, the environmental impact assessment and a hydrology report basically just give us again data, science based guidance. So that we can understand the risk, whether they're too high or whether the benefits are not clear and if that's the case we should step back and reconsider. So to me it's about again just understanding that or just identifying that we will undergo sort of due process and undertake a risk assessment when we get to the detailed design in the future storm events.

05:26:00 Mayor Wilkie: Question. Do wetlands already exist there? Director Walsh: Technically they do because the area is already subject to tidal inundation. So and because it's subject to tidal inundation with salinity it doesn't propose a health risk in terms of mosquitoes. That's a basic thing. The proposal to you know enhance this area as a wetland is actually just building upon something that's happening already and actually rather than seeing it as a detriment to the area to actually work with it and actually come up with a design response before we actually get to the actual response to what's happening at the moment. It becomes a much more attractive area that also has recreational as well as environmental benefit. So and I know that consistent with every other stage of you know this master plan of course

05:27:00 it would require detailed design assessment and risk assessment. We'd do the same for a playground for instance let alone a wetland to ensure that it's part of council's due process before we actually invest money and effort. There'd also be significant approvals required from all the different departments that are involved to ensure it met you know protection of the Noosa River and also assessment from a health perspective. So to me this is just replicating of course we would do this as part of a detailed design of that area. So but I think the notion is we're not creating a wetland. There's a wetland already emerging. It's enhancing. And it's actually enhancing it and working with it to have an attribute for our community versus something that's detrimental. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I know Cheyenne's got her hand up. Maybe you might talk about some of the work that's already done in regard to the hydrology etc. Speaker 5: Yeah hi everyone. Can you hear me okay? Yes thanks. Yes.

05:28:00 There's probably not much to add. Shaun summarised it quite well but maybe just one point that our sustainable catchment management consultants looked at all of the potential options in these areas. So in particular the wetland part it was determined that allowing a gradual transition over quite a period of time would actually benefit the water quality of the river and could reduce flood risk elsewhere so but as Shaun said definitely with detailed design we would be looking at doing risk assessments and a bit more hydrology hydrological analysis before we fully understood all the implications. So yeah thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Absolutely. Mr Chair I think if County Council would have a say in this. If County Council were to endorse this amendment it would signal that we don't understand what's going on there. This is a wetland already. We're not creating a new wetland. We're not increasing the risk of mosquitoes or cane toads as a result of doing any work

05:29:00 in Chapman Park. And also it's redundant to say that we need these reports because as we've said with previous amendments there's going to be design done. Yes. Before any changes are done. So please I think I can't support this amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Others wish to talk? I'll add to it. What's there we see now in the western side of Chapman Park is largely unusable as a parkland because it is quite often damp. What is proposed is something more akin to rehabilitation or of what was there. There is no doubt that there was extensive wetlands there in the past and that over time

05:30:00 it was filled to try and make it a park. The hydrological reporting or the you know as we've heard we've already done hydrological assessment from a flooding perspective to show you know these are classic things that we can do to actually reduce the flood risk to a surrounding not increase them. It gives you more flood plain storage capacity. The one actually of most concern to me would be independent environmental impact assessment because they can be very costly and when we're dealing with a fairly well-known urban area the benefit of doing it other than just looking at the environmental risks and benefits of approaching would be I don't know. I don't think it would be in the interest of the road payers because we're looking at a grass parkland with fringing or tearing wetlands and tidal inundation with sensors that come up because there's you know it's quite wet most of the year.

05:31:00 So really the science is quite well known about these things. So I think any design of a wetland would take in fairly standard approaches to designing urban wetlands. You know they're used extensively through development processes. That does include some level of hydrological assessment and impact assessment. So I don't think we need to be as specific as this and I don't think we have to put out there concerns about flood risks and increasing risk to health when there is decades of science and implementation that says it actually improves the situation. Others wish to talk? No. Councillor Phillips: Can I ask a question to Sean? When this precinct comes to us would we get, would we see all that through a report? Like when it, just give me, help me understand what I'll see when I get, when we get to this. Director Walsh: So firstly we'd need to have a budget to start a design process which we don't have.

05:32:00 So that would either be through a council funded initiative where you'd actually get to approve the scope and the methodology as part of our budget bid. Or we'd need to have a budget. Or part of a grant proposal. So and we usually require a co-contribution. So we need a co-contribution. And then the same way we roll out any project you'd expect initially a council workshop similar to what we did recently with Mr Woods. Where we sort of talk about the scope of the project and you have input into saying what you think will be required to actually meet your concerns and obligations. So you have input into the overall project design. And then when we meet the statutory authorities including our own internal approval entities, they've got their checklists under NUSA plan and all the different acts that we have to follow to ensure we meet these sort of standard obligations. It's almost like we're a land developer just following the process. And then of course as we progress the design we'd need to take you on the journey of the

05:33:00 design and then also agree on what community engagement method is as well. Councillor Phillips: Question. Thank you. What feedback did we get through, maybe through both last year's June and the one just on this specific precinct? Because for me I found that it almost got a little bit lost in, you know, if I said to someone, oh yeah there's, have you seen Chapman Park? That it was a bit of a surprise that anything was really happening there. So it probably ties into a conversation we have with Tom with comms or just talk me through maybe, what was the question? Director Walsh: So both iterations were very supportive of the retention of this as recreational space. And it met their expectations because the previous plan the council had for the area, which is the Noosaville Land Use Master Plan, which designate tenure under the Land Act. It was a very specific plan. Also said that this should all be recreational open space.

05:34:00 So it met the community expectations. So it wasn't the subject of major submissions or concerns. It's in both iterations, both the June as well as the November. So it was supportive. Councillor Phillips: One more question. Can it ever join to Hilton Esplanade from this, anywhere in this? I'm just trying to think what's in front of that. Yeah, off the top of my head. Director Walsh: In the June 2004 report, sorry June, June 2025 report, we teased the notion to see whether there was any appetite to do sort of an over with the side boardwalk. And that wasn't very popular. No. So there was one property along that frontage between Hilton Esplanade and Chapman Park that already has a public boardwalk. It's never been connected. And unfortunately it's not embraced in our planning scheme as a development control or the like. So unless we had a significant change in our planning scheme and really articulated

05:35:00 the requirement to have some sort of public boardwalk across the frontage of the properties between Hilton Terrace and the river, it's unlikely. So they have to basically come back down Mill Street, you know, along that sort of service road and then back onto Hilton Esplanade. Yeah. I've just been clear. It's not proposed in this master plan. No, that's fine. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Director Walsh: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: A question. Lisa River Slipway, were they consulted in terms of just these changes, whether it's the wetlands or the boardwalk, were they consulted as part of this process as a direct stakeholder? Director Walsh: I need to take that on notice about the level of engagement, but the Slipway is very active in understanding what's happening in and around their precinct. So this plan does not propose any change to the operating rights in Slipway. So other than seeking to formalise the access arrangements and parking arrangements in

05:36:00 that area. So because it is, it's an area that reflects really badly on Noosa at the moment in terms of the presentation of that area. So, and that would need to be. So Aidan, I have some more information. Shea's got his hand up. Okay. Shea, please. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 5: Thank you for your patience with the operator of the Slipway. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much, Shea. Thanks Shea. Yes. Councillor Finzel: Thanks for your patience, everyone. One thing we haven't looked at, addressed out of this is, and I guess it's maybe a question to Shea through the chair, increased risk to the health of the river. I think that's really important given, you know, the amount of time and energy and the love that our community has of our river. Just a question. A question around, you know, through the consultation, did this come up and how we're mitigating any risks that might arise around river health?

05:37:00 I don't recall reading anything much about that. Director Walsh: So, Shea, do you, look, probably I could mention that under the section on page 11 about understanding the environment and also about some of the subsequent sections, I think that there, and also loss of habitat and biodiversity to ensure that the river is protected. I'm not sure that's addressed under page 13. I think that river health was fundamental to the consideration of this plan. So, Shea, do you want to add anything to that? Speaker 5: No, that's exactly right, Shaun. Yeah, it was fundamental to all our considerations for resilience. You have to have biodiversity. Considerations go hand in hand with anything that addresses climate change. And so the river health was taken into consideration at every step for every option. And that's why nature-based solutions are important. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Other questions or people who wish to talk to the motion?

05:38:00 Councillor Norrinson, do you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: I'll close by saying thank you, Cheyenne and Shaun, for just letting me know that these reports are done as business as usual, is sort of what I've understood. When we get to the detailed design and construction of the proposed Westlands, I've understood that these reports are part of the process. So, I'm happy for this amendment to fall, understanding that this is business as usual. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Those against? That would be unanimous. Do we have any other amendments? We go back to the substantive motion and Councillor Rookie is the only one to have talked to it. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: We've got a few minutes. I've forgotten. Councillor Wilson: I think you're up pretty much. How long have we got?

05:39:00 How long have we got? We've got about eight hours to go as well. We're a little younger. We're all younger. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would anyone else like to talk to the motion? Mayor Wilkie: We'll look at the substantive motion as it stands. Oh, thank you. Alright, thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: So a smaller version of it you could put? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the changes to the original was A1 was included, and then there was a D and an E, there you go, D was in relation to the course in progress,

05:40:00 and E was regarding the statement. Speaker 9: And then one is Jess. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Should that be, should A1 be reverting the design approach? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well that's what's passed, can't change it. It's technical. Councillor Wilson: No, we've got to say authorising. Revert. No, revert is correct. Councillor Lorentson: But it's subject to reverting the design approach. Subject to. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Then as Nicola says, B should be authorising the C. Yeah, no, it's that Council, no, it's that Council approved, that Council authorised.

05:41:00 Yeah, that's true. Subject to reverting, and yeah, council note, and authorise, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Reverting to the design approach? Mayor Wilkie: Well it's got that, to that, as shown. Oh, okay. Councillor Finzel: As shown. Yeah, that's fine, I think. Councillor Lorentson: Is that big enough? Yeah. Speaker 8: Yeah. Councillor Wilson: That's good. Speaker 8: It's very good. Yeah. It's very good. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It has been a long process, it's probably been one of the more engaging processes of this term and I believe we've got a good outcome.

05:42:00 I think it's really important to understand what parks are for and I think because there was so much discussion around car parking we perhaps have lost that overall focus of what these reserves are for in the eyes of the Land Act. As I said I was in the minority, I think it was contrary to good planning to focus recreational reserves on marine industries in the river. I think the priority should be put on the accessibility and safety of park users. I think it is a very key recreational area for our community and it is one that if we do properly

05:43:00 will continue to provide many years of enjoyment and I know many key events in my children's life occurred on the river. Many key events in my scouting life occurred on and around the foreshore and I hope for generations to come we can maintain that level of enjoyment and accessibility. Others, we can talk. Councillor Phillips: I'll keep it really, really brief. There's probably not a lot of people in the room that know that the Noosaville foreshore made a bluey episode. So only the parents might see that. No, I don't think so. So it's a really iconic stretch for us.

05:44:00 Most and even tourists alike, if you haven't watched the bluey episode on the Noosaville foreshore, that is your homework tonight. Because it is loved by so many people. To reaffirm Brian's, like my whole childhood and every memory with my mum is on that foreshore. And the feedback came loud and clear that reaffirmed how I strongly feel this isn't just somewhere I live, this is my home. And it has memories from one, every single point along that whole foreshore. I can sit and think of something that has brought back a memory that makes me feel really, really proud to live here. And so I know this took some time, but to me this is probably one of the most important things I'll do in my term. Is see what the future holds for this space. Because there are people that aren't going anywhere.

05:45:00 They have lived here a long time and they aren't planning on moving. I am one of them. So I am glad that it took robust decision making and conversation around the table. Councillor Lorentson and the effort that you put into all the amendments I think is admirable. Because it may have seemed to some that it took some time, but to me all I got was how committed you are. To reinforce what the community have said through the process. I know my phone hasn't stopped around it and the emails. And I just hope that we remember our position here. I want to appreciate the staff effort and the amount of emails I've sent you and Kim. Because I understand that it takes a lot of extra effort from you to help. Bring the amendments along as well.

05:46:00 And that we're, I hope you can understand, we're just seeing it from a very different perspective as well. And hope that we can all be respectful through the process. I believe that it's things like this that can actually build trust. Because trust is built on consistent behaviour. So if it's tested and we stand up to that, then the trust is built in that process. Which is why I feel really strongly about making sure that we come together and find a very good solution to lots of different voices in our community. The only other thing I'll touch on is that it's probably reaffirmed to me that I'd love to see asset management into the future done really rigorously. Because it's sad to hear that we have so much ageing infrastructure. Along there. And maybe without changing the past, it would have been great to see maybe ratepayers' money spent in maintaining that before it got to end of life.

05:47:00 So that's something that I'm certainly passionate about while I sit in this chair. That we, if we're going to put something out there, infrastructure, then we need to know the whole of life cost. And we need to know what impact it's going to have on our generations when it comes to their rates. I don't have anything else. Did I go on over time? I was just trying to get my first word out. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because the bell keeps on going off and I forget to stop it. Councillor Phillips: I thought maybe now I can go over time for the first. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Others wish to talk? Councillor Wilson: Very briefly. I'm very pleased we've got this position today with a plan that celebrates and cherishes and protects the foreshore. It's viscerally important. It's the reason I moved to Noosa. It's the reason I moved back to Tewantin. It's where I spent most of my free time, if I had any.

05:48:00 So, yeah. I'm just really pleased that we've been able to get through all of this work. Thank you to the staff as well. And thank you to the community for the engagement on this much loved piece of Noosa. Councillor Wegener: The other day I went down and had an ice cream and was by the boathouse and watched the music and there were so many people. And it was such a happy place. It is paradise. It really, really is. I think that this whole escapade or this whole chapter in council has actually made us a stronger council in a way. I congratulate Cheyenne and Sean and the whole team for pursuing, for being persistent, marching forward, getting to this point, and considering all in all. I think it makes us better councillors for sure. We have a much better understanding of our job. I think because of it. And like you say about, you know, asset management and things.

05:49:00 So it's probably, there's a lot of positives that has come out of all of this. Councillor Wilson: Well okay, thanks then. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, firstly, thank you to everybody. To firstly our community for their commitment on sticking with us on the journey. To all the staff. And to all the councillors. I think it's been a pretty tumultuous ride. And there's been quite a few pain points. But also opportunity to learn, explore, and grow. And especially, I think, exploring the notion of change within that theme of excellence. And then, you know, keeping everyone together on that journey. Parks exist, I think, for our people. Our open spaces are definitely for connection, relaxation, and immersion. Especially in nature, you know, as we get the built environment coming more and more and people on screens. I think, you know, prioritising our parks and open spaces is essential.

05:50:00 I, myself, have so many memories of that. You know, with grandchildren, children, ice creams, birthday parties along the river. I think it's integral in who we are and our stories. I'd just like to close with, you know, we've got a national policy in Australia at the moment. And it says, a place for every story and a story for every place. And I think our river definitely captures that. So, a big thank you to everyone. Councillor Lorentson: Dr Martens? Yeah. So, I won't go over every story. I won't go over everything that's said. I think the community and I think every councillor around this table, we're all saying the same thing. We're acknowledging that it's a moving document. It can be updated. We can feed extra data. We can look at changing local priorities. And we just want to get on with it.

05:51:00 We don't need any more delays. We don't need to spend any more money. We don't need any more revisions. We don't need more consultation. Probably my only concerns are that there were two really main issues that were clearly voiced throughout this entire consultation process. The first one was, don't destroy the low key charm and character of the foreshore. And the second one was, made loud and clear, keep our car parks. So, I'm sitting a little bit in the middle at the moment. So, there was an amendment by the Council that said, we're not going to destroy the I'm concerned, as I mentioned in the argument, that we perhaps overengineering the space and we're forgetting, you know, we're forgetting what the Noosaville Foreshore looks, who we're catering for. It's relaxed, it's low key charm. So that's one of my concerns. The other one is, you know, we're forgetting what the Noosaville Foreshore looks like.

05:52:00 The other one was, you know, we're forgetting what the Noosaville Foreshore looks like. And there was no real acknowledgement that we would commit, I know we will aim to no net loss of parking across the precinct, but I don't know. That amendment to me was the most direct way for me to tell the community, or us to tell the community, that we've heard you. It was like a line in the sand. And I just feel that we didn't do it. So I 100% support the plan. I want to get on with it. I want to progress it, but I want that progress to be grounded in respect for the people who

05:53:00 participated in Good Faith over multiple years that have helped shape this plan. And I want it to be shaped by the lived reality of those who use the foreshore plan every day and not just a future vision that may look good on paper. So I want to state that the conversation of car parking, that's not going to go away. The people who fought for no loss of car parking, they're going to still be here. And they're going to be here at each detailed design stage and each budget discussion and at each construction milestone. And they'll be saying the same things. Don't take away our car parks. Don't take away our access. And don't destroy the low key charm and character of our foreshore. So my vote today is not, I'm not voting to delay the plan.

05:54:00 I'm not voting to start over. I'm not voting. I'm voting simply to acknowledge that some of the concerns of the community, particularly around access and the three and a half metre shared park, which was a big one for me, I'm voting to acknowledge that those concerns aren't going to be overlooked. And my vote today is to ensure that their voices are not lost in the final version. I'm hearing you, I'm listening and we all are but we need to continue to speak up for you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, look the real test is not that you face a difficulty or a challenge it's how you

05:55:00 respond to it and we always said that this was going to be a genuine consultation process and July, the plan that went out in July last year and the way we responded was an opportunity to rebuild that trust and demonstrate that trust and respect for what the community was telling us and the document that went back out showed to a large extent that we had listened, we listened to what the community was saying about the net loss of car parks. The intention was good, we were responding to the need to have a request to have separate paths for sale and cyclists and pedestrians but we couldn't achieve that without the loss of car parks so we listened to the community who took that off the table. The enjoyment, the safety and the accessibility of all users is at the forefront of what we're trying to achieve here. Sometimes they're in conflict accessibility versus safety like we heard in the jetty precinct but we can

05:56:00 overcome that through further detailed design and consultation. What we've come up with here is a resolution that shows that embodies our collective respect for what the community has said, the our respect for what the staff's advice is, technical advice about how to deliver all these things the community has been telling us. We all love this precinct, we all love our community, we've all listened very hard to what the community's been telling us and I think it was worth working through all those amendments, testing them to find out what lies at the heart of them and what lies at the heart of them all including the original motion which is based largely on the staff recommendation and all their hard work is that we have listened to the community, the Noosaville foreshore will remain a low-key recreational area that will be enjoyed by

05:57:00 all users regardless of age, that respects the heritage of the some of the traditional use commercial users on the precinct and that we'll continue to consult very carefully before we introduce any changes in the future. So thank you staff for your hard work, thank you councillors for your diligence on this and working together to reflect what the community has said through this Deputy Mayor Stockwell: revised master plan. I think I'll leave it at that. Thank you, I've put to the vote so supporting the motion. That's council Wilkie, Finzel, Wegner, Wilson and Stockwell. Those opposed is council Lorenton and Phillips. The motion is carried. Now councillors we've got six more items on the agenda. It's half past six.

05:58:00 Probably been an hour and a half or more since we had a break. Do we want to play one? Do we want another break? Councillor Lorentson: Can we need a procedural motion and maybe resume the meeting tomorrow? Can that be done? Or are we continuing? I'm happy to continue but just throwing back the suggestion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Another option would be to put the remaining items to the ordinary meeting on Thursday. Speaker 8: We can do that. My only thing is we've got Johnston sitting over here who's sat through the lot. He's the reporter, he's the next one up. Everyone else are directors. Oh let's go ahead, let's continue a little bit. Can we have Johnston go through? Can we have Johnston go through? Councillor Finzel: No. Speaker 8: We've flipped all of them down so it's just directors. I've got them, sorry I've got them. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So do we wish to have a break or do we wish to go to the next item and then refer the others to ordinary meeting?

05:59:00 If that's okay. Yeah, sounds good. Speaker 3: Procedural motion to adjourn. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, not at the moment. We're going to do item two in section seven. Oh yes. Councillor Wilson: It's the operational plan. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Twenty-four, twenty-five, quarter to three, quarterly reporting. Councillor Wilson: Do you want a couple of minutes break? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you want a couple of minutes break? Looks like Councillor Finzel does. Yes. Yes? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, that'll be fine. Do you want to sit down for a few minutes? Five minutes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Five minutes and we'll bring Johnston back.

7.2 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2024-25 Q3 QUARTERLY REPORTING (Referred from Services and Organisation Committee Meeting dated 10 June 2025 - Item 8.1) ¶

▶ 05:59:01· Carried 7-0 from council's minutes

06:06:00 Welcome back to the reporting and we have Johnston with us to give us an overview. Speaker 7: Good evening, councillors. Good evening. This report provides a progress update for council's current operational plan twenty-four, twenty-five.

06:07:00 So the annual operational plan is a key component in council's strategic planning framework and the initiatives in the operational plans are designed to fulfil the objectives of the corporate plan twenty-three, twenty-eight. A quarterly progress is updated to council and this is the third quarter update for the operational plan. There's 107 initiatives in the operational plan. Eighty-one of those initiatives, or seventy-six percent, are expected to be completed as scheduled. And one of the achievements for that quarter, as you remember, are the endorsement of the community grants policy. Completed as scheduled. And one of the achievements for that quarter, as you remember, are the endorsement of the community grants policy. Completed as scheduled. Compliance and enforcement policy. The endorsement of the Pomona Place plan. The public art policy. The housing monitoring program. The housing monitoring program. And the NAC upgrade plan. Just a few stand out items amongst many things that have been achieved.

06:08:00 So it's quite good sometimes to have a look at the operational plan to see what achievements there are because they are quite large pieces of the work. So it's quite good sometimes to have a look at the operational plan to see what achievements there are because they are quite large pieces of the work. Eighteen initiatives, or seventeen percent, are experiencing minor disruptions. However, these are anticipated to be finalized over the coming month. However, these are anticipated to be finalized over the coming month. These disruptions could be due to adverse weather conditions in terms of roadworks, resourcing limitations, shifting priorities, There are also eight initiatives that are experiencing major disruptions, one of which is very good to see to be tables and use a foreshore infrastructure management plan. And as you're all aware, the extended community engagement for that plan also caused delay

06:09:00 and postponement of other strategies, once the Noosa River catchment management plan and the destination management plan, for example. But other major items, for example, is also the community strategy that hasn't seen significant progress due to lack of funding. This report, before I go to the KPIs, I think I was also alluded to an error in the report. Item 531, it's a digital strategy and roadmap. It reads it will be tabled at the June ICT steering committee, which in fact should be this September. So the report also provides an overview of key operational performance indicators.

06:10:00 The performance is consistent with previous quarters, however, there were slight improvements noted for customer service, which is a decreased customer phone wait time. And I've spoken to the manager and he advised that it's likely caused by the team moving into a central location where staff can train each other much more efficiently and the exchange of information occurs much more efficiently as well. Then we also have seen in that quarter an improved ICT response time in terms of ICT requests that were responded to and resolved within a two-day timeframe, and this was caused by an increase in allocated staff resources, so a direct impact on the improvement there.

06:11:00 That concludes the summary for this report, I'm happy to take any questions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any questions? Would someone like to move the recommendation? I'm happy to move. Cancel or fizzle? I know a seconder would. Seconder. That would be Councillor Wilson. Councillor Finsall. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you to the staff and everyone for the report. I think that it's really good to have this report to us to see how much stuff is on track. Everyone's working really hard to meet the ambitious requirements, and a big thank you to everyone that's got involved. There doesn't appear to be anything that's outstanding in terms of we've really got to get a focus and move along. So, yeah, everyone keep up the good work, and yeah, happy to hear the report. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: I look forward to seeing the support report in the next operational plan.

06:12:00 Great detail. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Thank you for the report and all the great work in achieving 81 projects that will be completed. I just thought this might be a good opportunity to highlight the difference between councillor roles and staff roles. So, often we try and talk about a councillor's role as strategic and the staff's role as operational, and it's not always really clear what that means. And, of course, there are the customer-facing staff that residents do interact with all the time, and there's services that are more visible, but some of these elements in this operational plan are maybe things that are not so visible to the general public, and this quarterly report is a really great way of finding out what actually else is happening within the council with all of our staff. So, yeah, it's a really great read for us every quarter, and I'm glad that we have that level of transparency of what's actually happening, where money's being spent, what's on track.

06:13:00 But, yeah, just a good way for people to actually delve into all the different departments and find out what people do as well. And, of course, it's always good to celebrate progress and achievements. So, I'm glad that we can do that and look forward to seeing the next update for the end of the year. Speaker 7: Yeah, that will be an interesting one for sure. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lomington. I enjoy reading the operational plans because we talk about, you know, whether it's the foreshore management plan, the destination management plan, all these plans that come, and all these projects where we experience delays because of extended consultation periods and things like that. It's because workforce capacity and wellbeing. It's great to actually see that in a document, to understand real impacts of these real challenges, our resource limitations, emerging priorities. So it's great to have that document in front of us because you appreciate the enormity

06:14:00 of the work and projects that this council undertakes, and it is ambitious. And there are some serious challenges. So, for me, probably the other take home when I looked at the operational plan, I'm encouraged and really, really, really can't wait until the capability plan that's been outlined in the corporate plan, when that comes to fruition, because I think that's going to be a really important document when we talk about, you know, identifying potential gaps and opportunities to strengthen operations. Yeah. I think that document's going to hold the secrets. Speaker 7: Yeah, this will definitely be a focus of the next operation year as well. Fantastic. To further develop that. But I think it's also obviously a good opportunity because sometimes one is very absorbed in

06:15:00 a current matter like, for example, the use of a foreshore management plan, just take a step back and see actually what have we achieved in that quarter. Because once it's adopted, yes, there's always joy, but it's still forgotten quite quickly sometimes, and it gives you a good overview of all the achievements. It is quite significant. Councillor Lorentson: It is. Thank you, Johnston. Thank you for your work. Thank you. You're wonderful. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Others? Councillor Finzel. Mayor Wilkie: Well, hang on. I will say. Look, what's impressive about this report is that it shows that Council's operating at a very high level of efficiency at not only the strategic but also the operational level. For those strategic policies and projects like the Ural Ringtail Forest, which is a huge initiative where 2,400 hectares are being preserved as conservation estate, linking Tewantin to Cooloola Great National Park, by contrast, the Noosa National Park is 240 hectares, the Noosa Head

06:16:00 Section of the Noosa National Park. This is 10 times that size. Funding is secured for the Resilient Rivers Program. DDA compliance orders. It's for all the community halls, which will inform the resources that we give to those facilities. The Housing Monitoring Program has been established to give us the data so we can make informed decisions about our housing availability and affordability. The new Public Art Policy, finally, because if Council gets one, well, Councillor Finzel. The revised Community Grants Policy. It's been revised after maybe a good part of a decade. Very important strategic decision. Noosa Aquatic Centre Upgrade Plan, which allows to attract the funding to make this facility even better than it is and ready for Olympic teams that will come to use it as a training venue. Noosa Plan 2020 Amendment Number 2, despite long delays at the state level, we got that across the line and that contained very pivotal changes to our planning scheme that allow

06:17:00 us to further limit the spread of short-term accommodation. Through our residential neighbourhoods. Provide incentives to private industry. To provide affordable housing. And play our part in the housing affordability and availability crisis. The Pomona Place Program Plan. First for Noosa Council. The shared vision for a vibrant, livable Pomona. And the Integrated Compliance and Enforcement Policy, which hadn't been. We inherited one from the Sunshine Coast Council. But this is through the work of the City Council. The work of all Councilors made this our own and the Council website has been transitioned. There is. But you can see all the KPIs. There's a lot being happening. A lot happening at the operational level as well. We can track the improvements and the challenges that we're facing. There is some delays. But fortunately. Thanks, Councilors, for the Noosaville foreshore infrastructure management plan being endorsed today. That's one more we can tick off the list as a commitment we made to the community to

06:18:00 get done. So congratulations, everyone, on that. Next up is the destination management plan. And the Noosa River catchment management plan is on the way as well. This is a really good document. Anyone who wants to know how their rates money is spent. This will give them a sense of how we're tracking. And thanks mainly to the staff because you're doing the hard work. Thanks for the reporting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If we look at complete and on track, we're over 75% of all the items on the report. And that's the Universal Times, that's the Distinction. Obviously, we're really inspired by the Distinction. But minor disruptions have been made. If we go further 18, that's 92%.

06:19:00 And minor disruptions in a quarter where we had probably three weeks more rain than the average year. And we do a lot of those projects would likely be outdoors. I think it's a good outcome. That's it. Councillor Finzel, would you like to close? Councillor Finzel: I think it's all been said. It is a great document. Encourage everyone out in community to access that, read it, understand where we're at. Send councillors questions if you want clarification. But yeah, thankfully community can celebrate where we're headed and where we are now and a really good future ahead of us. So thank you, everyone. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? It's unanimous. Councillors, as foreshadowed in the break, I will move a procedural motion, which I've been beavering away at, writing in the break.

06:20:00 That items number 8, 9, 8.9, 8.10, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13, 8.14 be deferred to those in favour. June 20, 2025. To our Secretary, Councillor Wilkie. Councillors, it's now six hours and 21 minutes since the meeting started. I think it's good for a decision-maker to have a clear head, and we have a range of staff sitting around here who have got family commitments and other things that we should not detract them from or deter them from in the current situation. So I hope you'll support the procedure of motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Declare the meeting closed at 8.52.