Before the first item ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Lorentson: Good morning everyone and welcome to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting today, Tuesday, I think it's the 7th or 8th of July. I'd like to first of all begin by an acknowledgement to Country. Noosa Council acknowledges and respects Australia's First Nations people and their deep and abiding connection to this country. We recognise the Kabi Kabi people as the traditional owners of the lands and waters of the Noosa area and we pay respect to Elders past, present and emerging. And also to their enduring commitment in pursuing a strong and healthy future for First Nations people. Attendance, first of all apologies from the Mayor, he's not here today, he's on holidays for a couple of weeks.
1 DECLARATION OF OPENING ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶
00:01:00 Also our CEO Larry Sengstock, again I believe he's on holidays, so welcome to the Acting CEO seat, Director Richard MacGillivray. And I note also there is no one online, so welcome Councillor Griffin and Councillor Stockwell. Can I please request before the meeting commences that everyone have their phones on silent and all turned off, thank you. Go straight to confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover and a seconder, thank you. Councillor Wegener, Seconder, Councillor Stockwell. No discussion, all in favour please. So we'll go straight to, if you'll just bear with me.
4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
4.1 Planning & Environment Committee Meeting MINUTES Dated 10 JuNE 2025 ¶
00:02:00 So the next item for discussion is item number seven, reports for consideration. And there's one report, Noosa Junction Precinct Management Models Assessment. And I welcome to the desk. Kim, Anita and Michelle. Tara. Excuse me, Tara Wilson. And I just, I can hand it over to you for a summary of the report. Sure. Thank you. Speaker 4: At the ordinary meeting held on the 17th of October 2024, Council endorsed a notice of motion requesting an investigation into precinct management frameworks suitable for Noosa Junction. This report is in response to the notice of motion. The report has been prepared to compare strategies for addressing land use conflicts between entertainment venues and nearby residents. The scope of the report includes a review of current mitigation processes, a brief exploration of best practice management precinct, precinct management models, including special entertainment precincts, sake night precincts, the business improvement district model and the harmony project being carried out by University of the Sunshine Coast.
5 PRESENTATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
6 DEPUTATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
7 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
7.1 NOOSA JUNCTION PRECINCT MANAGEMENT MODELS ASSESSMENT ¶
00:03:00 And it also includes an assessment of their relevance and the applicability to the Noosa Junction context. The report specifically focuses on frameworks designed to manage the interface between hospitality venues and residential areas, while also considering broader integrated precinct management approaches encompassing the full range of land uses and business activities within the junction. An evaluation of each option is in attachment one of the report. The report concludes with a recommendation to further explore the business improvement district model. And that seeks to balance the diverse interests of stakeholders, enhance precinct vibrancy and ensure alignment with regulatory obligations. The recommendation in the report is that council engage with the relevant Noosa Junction stakeholders to gauge support or otherwise for the potential establishment of a precinct management framework based on the business improvement district model within the junction.
00:04:00 And subject to that support, that we investigate the feasibility, governance and funding models for the precinct management framework. And after that we would report back to council on the outcomes of both the engagement and the feasibility. Councillor Lorentson: I'll start. The recommendation there is to engage with relevant Noosa Junction stakeholders, Tama. I'm assuming and perhaps I might ask. If we can just make a reference that includes the wider community, residents as well. Is that the case? Yep. Yes, it would be. Fantastic. Questions around the table? Councillor Wegener, Councillor Stockwell, I refuse. I'll let you guys lead. Councillor Wegener: I remember this when I started out, the conflict between Noosa and the Junction and the residents.
00:05:00 Mostly that's what brought this about. And the residents are key stakeholders. So one of the risks, sorry I have a long question. One of the risks is that the key stakeholders may, residents in proximity, may feel excluded from the decision making that will impact them. The question, are they paying this levy? So if they're funded, there's a levy. And so if there's going to be people, stakeholders paying the levy, will the residents be contributing to that as stakeholders? Speaker 4: So at the moment, the Junction already has a levy that's being collected and being used within the Junction. Part of the investigation will be looking to see whether that is, if we increase that levy or what the options are with that existing levy.
00:06:00 Whether we look outside of that area, it would be part of the investigation. But I don't imagine that the residents would be paying a levy. Councillor Wegener: You guys go ahead. I might sort of add to that, Tom. Councillor Lorentson: So I've done a little bit of just research of what's happening in New South Wales. And they're investigating business improvement districts, really quite interesting. And they're probably a little bit ahead of where we are. So can you explain, and I think it will help answer some of your questions, Tom. But can you explain how a bid works, who pays, and why do we need it? Can it exist without our intervention? Speaker 4: So essentially, you'd set up the precinct area. So at the moment, we're obviously just looking at the Noosa Junction hospitality precinct area that's outlined in the scheme. In theory, that would be the area that would be investigated.
00:07:00 It would be the area that would be paying the levy. So the levy goes into a fund that's then used for the different sorts of things in terms of marketing strategies and things like that. So it's not specific just to the hospitality venues, which is where this sort of investigation did start. And then we looked at, well, we would be looking at the whole area as a whole. And in terms of how we would balance the existing, the other businesses outside of just the hospitality area. So essentially, that's the whole area. The main, I guess, framework of the levy is the, sorry, the framework of the bid is for them to pay the levy. And then that money gets used by a board. So council sort of sits outside of that board. But we can provide administrative and financial, sorry, governance structures to that. Councillor Lorentson: So property owners and tenants pay the levy, or is it just the property owners?
00:08:00 Speaker 4: That would be part of the investigation. But I think generally it's just the property owners and residents. Councillor Lorentson: So the ones that I've been reading about, so if you live in the precinct, the levy doesn't apply to the residents. And I'm just trying to think, Hastings Street Association, how does that levy work? Is that businesses, property owners? Property owners. Property owners. So is there opportunity in the use of junction framework that if you live in the precinct, it could be replaced? It could. Director Rawlings: It could, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: And that would be probably more equitable or more big? Director Rawlings: Yeah, it definitely could. That would be all part of the feasibility. And that's why engaging with stakeholders about the model and what its opportunities are and what it can enable and what sort of, you know, governance might sit around it I think is a really important step before we jump to what the actual model looks like. You'll note in the report it says a model based on the bid type framework.
00:09:00 We don't have the legislative framework to implement a bid, but we have similar parameters. We think there are huge benefits from a bid type framework, but essentially it would be a nuanced, locally specific framework for the junction that works for the junction and the key stakeholders. Modelled on the type bid framework. If that makes sense. Yeah, that does. Councillor Lorentson: So in terms of what's happening in the junction, there is significant development and I'm going from, you know, we've got the prisons perhaps behind the cinema, the affordable housing. We've got both of those things. We've got a booking sort of junction with significant developments for Carlisle, the boxcars.
00:10:00 There may be some movement there. How important is establishing this sort of framework given where we're going in terms of, you know, future planning? Director Rawlings: Yeah, I think establishing some sort of framework, sort of precinct management framework could actually help manage some of the opportunities and impacts. Yeah. Of the massive change potentially that the Noosa Junction is going to go through. So yeah, I think it could create, you know, the sort of scaffolding, the framework to help, you know, provide a great source of communication, to have the right people around the table, to weigh up opportunities and implications, you know, to help council get ahead of some of the issues that might arise. So, you know, I think these frameworks, when you look at case studies, the benefits of
00:11:00 them seem to outweigh some of the challenges that, you know, might arise. So I think it would be a positive approach. Of course, it needs to be something that the stakeholders, landowners, owners in the junction would want. So that's definitely a first step. It's not something that we're going to have to do in the future. It's not something that you would impose. It's something that needs to be wanted from key stakeholders. Speaker 3: It would also enable them to have a voice around the table about the future of the junction in terms of the role and function and direction, particularly from an economic perspective as well. And how all those different developments all knit together to have a, you know, overall vision and role for the junction. Councillor Lorentson: Now, this doesn't override planning rules, environmental rules, regulations. No, it doesn't. It sits beside us. It's supported. Director Rawlings: Absolutely. It doesn't override any of that. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic.
00:12:00 And in terms of council, again, does it duplicate the work or services we already provide? It complements this sort of how I'm reading all this. Director Rawlings: Yes, it may require some resourcing, though. So it's part of the feasibility and consideration of sort of helping establish, helping support. You know, council would probably have more of a presence. So there will be some resource consideration. Councillor Lorentson: I don't know what I'm talking. Councillor Stockwell, do you have questions? Councillor Wegener: You said that the junction association already has a levy. Are you saying that this will be, that they're going to voluntarily give some of that levy to this project? You didn't say that. So this is a levy different from the junction association levy that already exists? Director Rawlings: It could be. It could be. It could evolve into a different form of levy, Councillor Wegener.
00:13:00 So rather than an additional, it could be, you know, and these are the conversations that we need to have and we haven't had them with the junction association and the business out there to see whether or not there's an appetite to evolve the framework, which could mean that the levy looks slightly different. Councillor Wegener: Okay. And then you said that the landowners pay the levy, not the, not the, because I just, I was just with, with a renter there and they said their rent has increased dramatically up to $6,000 a month, which is $72,000 a year for a small studio. And I look at that and I just say, well, we need to be talking to the, the people that are renters, the actual businesses, the business owners. I'm not quite sure. I'm not, if they're even, oh, they're, they're stakeholders, but you have the stakeholders, the business owners, the residents. Is this focusing on payments from the business owners and do they have the same interests
00:14:00 as the other two stakeholders? That's what I'm just very confused about, about what we're actually doing here and who's paying for it and whether we're, whether we're actually fixing the original problem of noise, antisocial behavior, residents complaining. Okay. Are we, are we, are we actually addressing the problem or are we trying to, um, improve the, the business district of the Noosa Junction by talking to the landowners and not actually the businesses that are there? Long question. Director Rawlings: So the, the intention would be to talk to all stakeholders and all of those people you listed are stakeholders, whether they live there, whether they work there, whether they have businesses there or whether they own land there. So, um, the stakeholders would be all of those groups. Uh, this, this proposed framework is about setting up a collaborative framework with all stakeholders to manage whatever issues arise at the junction and whatever sort of opportunities and, and
00:15:00 like Anita said, future role, um, and future considerations. So it is, um, it is about establishing a framework with the right people around the table to work through the issues that arise at the junction. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: So can I, I'm thinking for example, so Nois is what brought this motion here to the table. Um, so part of their strategy is that it's a business plan and it's a strategic plan that will be developed. I'm understanding that whether it's a tenant and a landlord and resident, they will have equal voting rights. So, so that plan is developed. Go over to the table. Um, and the residents can't take any wider questions. I do have a question for the community, but in terms of, like I keep going, how's it going to exactly where you're coming from, Tom, how's it going to fix the problem? And I think, and please correct me, fixing the problem is sometimes just simply getting all the key stakeholders around the table and talking and to me, community solutions, they
00:16:00 might not necessarily be exactly the same format as a VID. It'll be a, there's a specific community solution to the issues. And when I talk to residents is, do you have, you know, zoning adjustments? One side of the street is a little bit different to another side of the street. Acoustic treatments, vegetation, noise, those sort of noise mitigation issues. So I see the value in at least a minimum opening the discussion. And I also like the fact that in New South Wales, they're quite ahead of this. And they're looking at legislative changes. That's how encouraged they are.
00:17:00 So to me, I just like further information. And again, really respect that this is contingent on the support of the Noosa Junction Association and the wider community. Because without their buy-in, you know, there's no point. Councillor Wegener: And yeah, let me speak to the staff, you know, bring up more questions. Councillor Lorentson: Is there any further questions before we speak to it? Councillor Wegener: I mean, we've just gone through the Titus budget. And here we are going to put, you know, have a budget. And for this, it would be a considerable time for a staff member to work on this. Councillor Lorentson: Can I just step in, Tom? Before I ask you to speak, we might ask for a move. I'm happy to move. Do you want to move the motion? And I'm a seconder.
00:18:00 Councillor Wegener: Oh, yeah, yeah, okay, to speak to it, right. Councillor Lorentson: And I'll speak to it since I've moved it. And then I'll ask you to speak. I'm excited about the opportunities for the head of the Junction. We've discussed around the table, you know, there's going to be some significant developments happening in the Junction. From the Carlisle to the old Bowles Club site. To projects potentially behind the cinema. Part of even New St. John's in the Drive. And I think, you know, what we've got in front of us is an opportunity to be forward-thinking and future-focused. It's an invitation. I think the motion is simply an invitation to gauge whether or not, again, the key stakeholders identify this as an issue. And want to pursue it.
00:19:00 And I just think, again, we've got an invitation to start some really important conversations. We can not go ahead with this. And the issues that are arising, and I know that it escalated quite a bit over the last few months. So that doesn't come to this table. But there are ongoing discussions. There are ongoing land use conflict issues, noise issues in the Junction. I've been told over the last two months there's been, yep, residents not happy. And I just think we can pretend it's not happening. Or we can be proactive and work with the business district and with the residents. And find community solutions to these issues. This isn't going to go away. In fact, I think it's just going to get, you know, it'll exacerbate.
00:20:00 So, you know, I want to take the opportunity and thank the staff. I think the report is really great. And the scope of the notified motion was to explore these best practice precinct management plans. And assess their relevance and applicability to Noosaville Junction. I'm hoping that this does get support from Noosaville Junction Association. But I do want to stress all that's in front of us is an invitation to the Junction. And the key stakeholders, whether they want to partake in conversation. This is not something that's going to happen overnight. There is no commitment to resourcing. This is basically invitation. Sit around the table. And recommendations C subject to B. Investigate the feasibility governance and funding models. That's something that's done contingent on B being supported.
00:21:00 So I'm excited and hope that this recommendation does get support around the table. Councillor Wegener: I always have a, one, I have a policy where I don't like to micromanage what other big businesses, groups, organizations, governments are doing. And this may fall into that category of micromanagement. I immediately, when you say that there's a levy and the old business, not business owners, the landowners are going to be paying the levy. Well, they have the power. That's who this thing is working for. And you say, well, you've got key stakeholders on the residents and key stakeholders on the businesses. But I just see it as who's paying for it. They've got the power. I don't see the end, the PID actually addressing what the presidents want, who are worried about the noise.
00:22:00 I think that we haven't even exhausted our, what we're already doing. We are calm, our collaborative approach to liquor management. We don't even, Noosa hasn't, Noosa Council has not been a formal member of the Accord, nor has the Accord actually been going on. Been active, been so active. But it's been happening for 15 years. So we already have the office of liquor and gambling. We have our own organization called Calm, which has been around for a long time. We have our Noosa plan that regulates these things. And when it comes to the key thing we're worried about, which is noise in the junction, well, that is squarely the opposite of liquor and gambling. Whether we're going to have any influence on that at all, because like you say, that takes priority. Those rules are forced. What we've already given these businesses, the businesses, is that they can do what they're going to do. They have the right to have the music at a certain level.
00:23:00 They have certain rights that are already there. I see the PID as trying to work with the businesses in order to perhaps get more businesses, perhaps have residents involved somewhat. But I see that it's not actually. It's not actually going to address the problem. And we haven't. Well, there's the Noosa Junction. There's the business association. What is it? The business chamber. The business chamber at the Noosa Junction Association, those are the groups that we can support. But I don't think this PID, we need to do it. It's not necessary. It's a strain on our resources that we know we've had a super tight budget. And I don't. I just see inconsistencies with the plan. And I can't actually imagine it working in my own head. So I can't support it if I can't really see it happening. And it happening effectively. And with the power that it needs to actually have teeth.
00:24:00 Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a couple of questions? So the Noosa Junctions, do they pay a living capital? Director Rawlings: Yes. Councillor Lorentson: They do. Sorry. Sorry. So if this was to go here, it would replace the same levy but different parameters. Yes. Is that correct? Correctly. At the moment, they pay a levy. Do they have total power to use that levy the way they want it? And would a big framework give them more autonomy or less? Director Rawlings: So at the moment, they pay a levy. As part of that, they're required to develop a marketing plan because it's primarily for marketing of the precinct, which they submit to us. It's their plan. They submit to us. And then they spend the money in accordance with their plan. I would suggest the same sort of approach would happen. That a plan for the precinct would be developed, a strategic plan for the precinct, identifying
00:25:00 priorities. And then the funding, essentially council just acts as the collector and then gives the money back to them. Would be used to implement the priorities of the plan. Councillor Lorentson: So security would be if they identified security. That's right. Same as what Hastings did. They need more police. They need cameras. They would have the autonomy through their own plan and their own funding to make those decisions separate to council. Director Rawlings: That would be the intention. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it's protocol. If we don't have consensus here, we do. I will say a couple of words. I understand some of what council would say. And perhaps the opportunity here is, I was looking up where the hospitality precinct is. And it's basically the businesses, most of the businesses front in Sunshine Beach Road, not those to the extreme south.
00:26:00 And the ones on the eastern side are landing out of the way. So it's a smaller group. I think there is value in thinking the existence of those businesses. The existing levy may be capital works focused. And may be more structural, which is logical for the business owners to be the contributors to. However, what I think the issue is, is around activities, events. And it's probably more logical for the business owners to be the key decision makers. How they work together to create an environment through the running of their business, more so than actual capital work. So there may be something that can be worked out there about the purpose of the two different activities. There are initiatives, and if need funding, it goes from there. But I'll move the procedural motion to be referred to the General Committee for further consideration. I'll second it. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. Thank you, Tara and Andrea, for that. Next.
00:27:00 And the next report's been noted. Welcome, Patrick, to the desk. And we're looking at Report 8.1, Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority. And Patrick, if you can give us an overview of the applications decided this month. Speaker 2: Thank you. Yeah, so this is a report detailing those. And it's a report that we're looking at. And we're looking at applications that were decided under delegated authority for the month of May. Another productive month for the team across a range of application types with 48 applications that were decided. All of those applications were approved. So, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. Questions around the table?
8 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
8.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – MAY 2025 ¶
00:28:00 Councillor Wegener: There was one application front of Pinbarren Road. And I think that was the first one. For the sites for not campers, but for nature-based tourism. Nature-based tourism. And that was approved. Speaker 2: That's right. So, in 2020, there was an application approved on the site for nature-based tourism. The trail network goes past the front of the site, and that was the reasoning why it was approved back then. With the number of cabins, I think it was three cabins originally, there's now been an additional cabin located on the site for that purpose. Councillor Wegener: With that nature-based activities, do they support the actual trail network? Is there any way we could have a link between the tourism that's evolving there and supporting the trails, which a lot of people are going to actually walk on and enjoy? Speaker 2: Nature-based tourism could be for a range of different types of activities.
00:29:00 So, it will be determined by, I suppose, the location. Of the premise and some of the attributes that might be on the site and also in the surrounding area. This site has a small frontage to the network, I think, in terms of whether you're seeking for those people that have an approval to contribute to the maintenance of the trail. I'm not sure if that's the question that you're asking, but any condition would need to be reasonable and relevant. And I don't think that would be reasonable or relevant in this circumstance before cabins, considering the broad length and use of the trail to require a limited number of persons Councillor Wegener: to contribute. It's funny. I think as a PID, and I think this would be a great example for, you know, the businesses and the environment-based businesses in the hinterland, they might need a PID. That's a great idea. Councillor Lorentson: That's a great idea. That's the sort of framework, you know, you could do a pilot summary and understand its application across the Shire.
00:30:00 I agree. Speaker 1: It's relevant to note that all development levels will be paid infrastructure charges too, so that can essentially be a contribution to trunk infrastructure, which can include our district parks and, in some cases, trails as well. So there's a contribution through that, but to Patrick's point, it's more around they are supporting and enabling people to access those tracks, which is essentially what that accommodation will facilitate, but it's not limited just to access to trails. Councillor Wegener: Does that get me? Speaker 1: Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Hello. Councillor Wegener: Sorry. No, I did mention that actually a PID might actually be very relevant to the hinterland businesses. Like we have eco-tourism, camping, not camping, but cabins. And, you know, the hinterland, that would be a place where there could be a PID because the landowners and the business owners are the same. And that they might- Councillor Lorentson: Can you make that a question? Yeah. So I just throw a can- Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Would the hinterland businesses be an example of something that might be good for a PID
00:31:00 development? Director Rawlings: So the idea of a business improvement district is that it's also spatial, so that it's actually a district or it's actually in a defined area. So it's not about picking out a group of businesses. I think that's more of like a network or an ecosystem or a facilitator. You know, process. Councillor Lorentson: So a major centre is a precinct. Director Rawlings: That's right. It really needs parameters and boundaries to say this is the scope of the area that we are putting a framework around. They are all contributing, whether it's time, money, resources, you know, everyone's at the table, to deal with these issues or to, you know, renew an area or, you know, implement a new one. It's a strategic plan. So I'm not sure it's the right framework for what you're talking about, Tom, kind of
00:32:00 selecting individual landowners or businesses across the Shire. I think there are other things that we could do to help facilitate that, not the business improvement district model. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I think, getting a bit off course, it's a planning matter and I agree it's not very reasonable and relevant. I think it's okay for me to talk about it now because there's no such thing as the process that I helped facilitate a few years ago looking at all these opportunities. And certainly around the world, there's these sort of friends of trails network that spring up out of the businesses that have, their customers are using and it's generally a more voluntary approach. But I suppose the other thing to recognise is as a short term accommodation, they do have a multiplier on their rate. So we are all already getting an enhanced contribution towards the providing facilities for the guests as part of that. So it's not a budget process anyway. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. We're a little bit off topic, but given it's a committee meeting, I'm enjoying
00:33:00 the conversation and allowing it. I've noticed, Patrick, no secondary improvements in this round of meetings, which is unusual because I think that the uptake's so far slow, but it's happening. Speaker 2: Yeah, it certainly is and I think that's probably the planning scheme doing its job in terms of facilitating secondary dwellings without having to come through planning. So it doesn't mean that it hasn't been approvals through the private certifier. The only ones you'll see through planning are those that are triggered through the scheme and generally... Councillor Lorentson: Relaxations and... Speaker 2: That's right. With the new scheme, reducing some of the parameters around the location of where a secondary dwelling had to be, it's certainly significantly reduced the numbers that have come through planning in the past few years. But still, there is an uptake that we're seeing through the building department. Councillor Lorentson: Can we capture that data in this report?
00:34:00 Like, it would be just great to understand what the uptake of secondary dwellings are. So anything that's certified by a building certifier, can we have, like, maybe a little section in this report? Speaker 1: I'm just wondering if we've got a housing monitoring report that we're looking at doing for council, and I think that would be helpful. I think that would be the best sort of forum to report on all of those metrics, Amelia, rather than adding in particular building elements. And it takes a little bit of time and a bit of labour that comes from private building certifiers. So I think that's the best forum to give us a really good snapshot of what's coming through the door in that space. Absolutely. Councillor Lorentson: And my only other question, and on short-term accommodation, I think approved new self-drive? Speaker 2: Yes. So that was... Was it seven of six and six? Six of six. Yeah. So all that was was the conversion of a multi-purpose room into a bedroom within an existing dwelling unit that was in the tourist accommodation zone.
00:35:00 The applicant had the opportunity to make a minor change to an existing approval, however, persisted in, as is their right with moving forward, just as an MCU application. So it was a very minor modification to the existing dwelling. And that was a dwelling unit, not a low-density residential zone dwelling, but a multiple dwelling unit, again, within a tourist accommodation zone property. Councillor Lorentson: So did we approve a new STA or an existing STA? Speaker 2: No, it was existing. It was just a change from two to three bedrooms, and that was a conversion of the multi-purpose room to a bedroom. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. Further questions around the table? This is going to be a short, but an ongoing discussion. An Environment Committee meeting. Happy to move. Thank you. Seconder? Councillor Wegener? No discussion. All in favour? Thank you. No. And no confidential sessions.
00:36:00 And I declare the meeting now closed at 10 past 10. This beautiful Tuesday morning. So thank you, Councillors. Thanks, Patrick. And thank you, Acting CEO, Richard MacGillivray. It's been a great day. Speaker 3: Thank you, Kim.
9 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION ¶
Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.
10 MEETING CLOSURE ¶
Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.