Ordinary Meeting - 18 September 2025 Transcript

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶

▶ 00:00:19

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

3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶

▶ 00:00:24

00:01:00 That's... I'm late. Thank you, Tom. That's unanimous. We have no petitions. There are no presentations. We have one deputation from Mr Thomas Draper. We have 15 minutes set aside for you, Mr Draper. The topic is the DMP. Would you like to come to the lectern and present your deputation, Thomas? Speaker 4: Yes, sir. Our 2025 Noosa Destination Management Plan, parking. It is felt that the Noosa CBD destination is half-baked. The assertion that expenditure on CBD infrastructure is uneconomic is false.

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - ORDINARY MEETING DATED 21 AUGUST 2025 ¶

▶ 00:01:06

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

7 DEPUTATIONS ¶

▶ 00:01:31

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

7.1 Applicant: Thomas Draper Topic: DMP Speakers: Thomas Draper & Jason Beckton ¶

▶ 00:01:34

00:02:00 Both tourists and residents prefer to drive and park their vehicles near Hastings Street. 120 metres west of Hastings Street, one site has year-round potential to grow Hastings Street business. It seems compelling to build a multi-use, four-level, strata-titled car park on Noosa Spit at the Noosa Woods border. Circa 5 hectares would be required near the main beach groin between Claude Batten Drive and the beach. It is dependent upon Noosa Woods. Upon a Noosa Woods to Noosa Pride connection, which is addressed later. Positive attributes. West of the Sofitel, potential for growth exists where little has eventuated in 50 years.

00:03:00 A 600-car strata-titled parking garage at the main beach groin should attract public investment. The ground floor could accommodate fire, ambulance departments and also strata-titled whatever. The complex would be largely hidden from view by scrubs. Centres for operations would be a family manager's residence and control centre. Convenient 24-hour parking for Hastings Street business owners and staff would be surely appreciated. Featuring integrated 5G phone charge booking system, cloud-based with AI camera analytics. Passes should be issued in various classes for all new citizens. Noosa Shire residents. Advanced phone booking should give great advantage to locals. Secured bicycle and motorcycle parking. Headroom provided on ground floor for high vehicles, kayaks and beach furniture.

00:04:00 An electric vertical take-off and landing EV tile. Air taxi flight centre on the roof. Features downwash abatement. Uber taxi and ambulance ramp to the roof for helicopter ambulance services. Various refuelling options for hybrid, road and aerial taxis on the roof. Direct air taxi service to police, headquarters, Coroya, land appointments, Sunshine Coast Airport and other. Best low impact helicopter and electric vertical take-off and landing flight path destination in Noosa. Car rentals and service workshops to be provided. Covered parking provides protection from sudden hail which is likely to increase in frequency. Covered illuminated walk to connect garage to Hastings Street and ferry ticket lights. Middle aged to LD driver access to main beach shops and restaurants. Outgoing traffic to pass over Sofitore Passage to Noosa Parade and Noosaville. This issue is addressed later.

00:05:00 Iguana. Superyacht, 20 person tracked amphibious tender for major economic gain to be provided and garaged. Sea legs. Wheeled amphibious tender for surfers and boards to drive to the beach. Subsequently, all but local surfers should be banned from Laguna Park, Laguna Bay, I should say National Park, Laguna Bay track. Subsequently, parking in National Park and nearby streets may be shared with the elderly and incapacitated. Surf board and kayak sales, rental and repair shop to be provided. Short order barbecue, cafe, snack shop and gravel roof metal staff is required. Public shower and toilet and photography. Golf buggy parking and maintenance workshop may also be provided on the ground floor. Beachgoers will spread to the west, taking pressure off the beach near the surf club to the east. Hastings Street conversion to one way required and addressed in the following statement. The outcome will be parking in two enclaves, east and west of Sofitore and Hastings Street.

00:06:00 Increased popularity of the currently quiet zone of Hastings Street west of the Sofitore. An optimised city west end will lead to scaling up of all business along Hastings Street. Potential for any increases in the quiet zone west of Sofitore should eventually. The attraction of shoppers to the west and to the west end could give property owners incentive to redevelop. Investigate the possibility of a multi-level cultural zone, the Montmartre of Noosa. Traffic entanglement will be resolved at Noosa Drive and Park Road Junction in Peacow. Place an electronic gate on Claude Bagley Street. Drive at the border marker and charge all Bogdog Beach visitors to the spit. Give drivers advanced surety of parking spots so they can plan their day with confidence. Overflow cars from Noosa Drive are unlikely to park in Noosa Parade west of Belly Street. Prioritisation will be given to the incapacitated, their special equipment and their beach assets. Immediate proximity to weddings and major events in Noosa Woods is an obvious outcome.

00:07:00 Increased fees will be collected by Noosa Council. While further increases are expected in real estate prices, basic cash flow for start and final should be about $30 million. Construction costs upwards of $30 million. Construction of a connection across Sofitore Passage is essential for the above-mentioned advantages to be realised. About the bridge. Poor traffic flow can cause driving dissatisfaction when arriving in Noosa CBD. A twin-lane road link connecting the western end of Hastings Street to Noosa Parade would solve the problem. It should connect from the banks of Noosa Woods passing across the Sofitore Passage wall line to the western end of Garth Proud Bridge. There, a twin-lane roundabout would allow both through-traffic freedom and left-lane entry from the west to Noosa Woods. The links across the passage could include a parallel pathway on the eastern side. A road branch heading north-west would connect directly to the driver's main beach floor level garage brought to your attention earlier. Positive activities.

00:08:00 The design should meet permissible grade and hydraulic modelling requirements. It is recommended that Hastings Street traffic be rerouted to one-way traffic east to west, as mentioned in paragraph 31 of the foregoing address on the proposed main beach groin parking garage. The frequent traffic tangling at the Hastings Street police link junction caused by exiting Hastings Street vehicular traffic would be resolved, as mentioned in point 37 of the foregoing address on parking. Outgoing parkway traffic would no longer be confronted by traffic exiting Hastings Street traffic. Pedestrian traffic would then present only a minor problem for drivers and overwinds at any city intersection. Exiting onto Noosaville Parade would be inconvenient, of course, while parking spots would have to be found somewhere in the direction of Noosaville, involving a considerable walk back, better than nothing should a street level parking on Noosaville pit be full. Of course, buggy service could be available in point of the wide ongoing footpath. Alternatively, traffic could follow Claude Batten Drive, the continuation of Hastings

00:09:00 Street, to the proposed 600-vehicle parking complex, addressed previously, or onto inadequate existing extensive street-level parking throughout Noosaville Spit. Left turn on the Garth Brown Bridge could be camera-regulated in peak traffic periods. Right and left turns on the Noosaville Parade from Noosaville Drive should then also be camera-regulated in peak traffic periods. A raised viewing platform at the crest of the main arch of the proposed culvert, architecturally leaning into the façade, could provide a pearly river and sunset views. Passage for ferries would be assured at highest astronomical tide. Post-Romanesque culvert design should significantly enhance the general appeal of the CBD. Façade tiling providing modern aesthetic elegance, while attractive, would also reduce structural corrosion. The arches would carry heavy-vehicle loads. The cost of construction for the entire bridge, culvert that is, segment, including and single bridge, should be less than that would be expected of any alternate bridge design. Precast arches are estimated to cost only $660,000.

00:10:00 The entire project, and all associated road work from Noosaville Parade up to, but not including the multi-tiered garage, would cost upwards of $30 million, according to Brady, Moran and Silver. Construction of a culvert across Somford Hill Passage is essential for the previously presented project for a multi-level garage to be realised. Five to seven star hotel and entertainment centre. Newslessly many roads and parking infrastructure problems are tackled in the two other 2017 Draper Project segments presented today, where some funding is to be sourced through Strata Title. Here, however, funds sourced through the sale of 63 hectares of rezoned public property for the herein addressed third project segment, the Loggerhead Hotel, would also be needed to go towards the proposed Somford Hill Passage culvert addressed earlier, if funding is unavailable elsewhere. Project attributes. The parcel van is a one-time rock quarry I saw closed down in 1952 and is of great value. The quarry is, however, for some inconceivable reason, locked and gated within the National

00:11:00 Park. Development of the otherwise unused, largely barren site would get rid of illegal campers. A magnificent 1,500 seat entertainment centre and a five to seven star hotel could fill the hole. If rezoning from the National Park proves impossible, then a land swap could be pursued. A land parcel would be part of Yanamaya Reserve. It is unmarked continuation of the National Park. A line plot survey identifies the suggested parcel. It lies between the quarry and Pepper's Resort. To the south west. Yanamaya Reserve, part of Noosa Shire, runs north to south along a line bordering Pepper's Resort and Viridian Resort, the latter otherwise known as Noosa Residences. Suggested exterior hotel design resembles a loggerhead turtle, common in our waters. The recommendation would be beyond the boundaries of traditional architecture. It should blend into the landscape giving a feel of luxury and science fiction, that is, neo-cosmic. Ideally suited to extrapolations by highly intelligent, experienced, award-winning architects.

00:12:00 Internally themed, or Noosa River, the epitomise of timber-getting culture in the aboriginal. Reclaimed or recycled timber, porcelain, tile and figment grass wall art recommended internally to accentuate appeal. The project should attract the skills of local wood sculptors. Hopefully the whole quarry, through old blasting, can be regarded as construction space. The quarried space could also be developed for staff, housing and provide parking. Parking for coaches and private vehicles is situated at the northern extremity of the land pass. Proceeding parking space should be jointly utilised by visitors to a Laguna walkout and the hotel. The hotel top level should provide a 180 degree view of Sunshine Beach and Isabel. The hotel complex is proposed to be split in two categories, with separate entrances. The entertainment centre can also cater for conventions and is one-third tiered. The centre designed for the stage with 930 retractable doors. The seats would allow diverse utilisation. Australian Star Rating Standards Hotel Main Section should be a 500 bed, 5 star.

00:13:00 A small of a 7 star, but an all-suites complex, shall offer service equal to Galleria Vic Milan. The entire complex should equal the 6 star Australian Sustainability Rating of Crown City. A light traffic meant to the hotel from Hastings Street is possible by a main-rearing rise of Moorwell Drive. The proposed link is referenced and clearly defined in the before-mentioned line item number 7, Line Plot Survey. The sale would easily fund all government works for the hotel, the Soffit Hill Colour and the Spit Garage. In other words, the three projects complete would cost the public nothing. The extra hotel rooms will reduce the demands on the STA mark. The 7 star hotel segment should be in demand by the super yacht's high-income mark. Our Viewland Drive may be widened to accommodate over-throw parking from Pepper's Conferences. Increased popularity of Laguna Lookout demands road widening and extra parking.

00:14:00 All the preceding and necessary widening would benefit the loggerhead. An alternative road link was proposed in the 2017 Draper Project in 2019, drawing a veil. An elevator of some kind should provide a connection to Laguna Lookout. The land parcel, ideally 63 hectares, should raise 103 hectares. It could be shaved back to a minimum and still raise 75 hectares. International interest has already been expressed on the status of this project. That's it, ladies and gentlemen. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Draper. Thank you very much. We're going to have a ten-minute adjournment after question time and we'll catch up with you then. We have two submissions for public question time. The first is from Mr Alan Dearing. Mr Dearing would like to come to the lectern to read your questions, which will be answered by Shaun Walsh, the Director of Infrastructure Services. Speaker 6: Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity for me to ask these questions.

00:15:00 Question one. I bought my property 40 years ago on the eastern end of Crooey Mountain Road. As with most rural roads, it was dirt with minimal traffic. With time and development, roads are sealed with traffic increases. The western end of Crooey Mountain Road is four kilometres sealed. The last two-kilometre section was sealed last century. The last road sealed in Noosa Shire was Dr Page's Road, to a width of 8.5 metres, undertaken by Mayor Noel Playford at a cost of $5.6 million, who set upon opening in 2016 a win for hinterland tourism. He's aspirated by the dust issue, or what seemed to be council policy, of not sealing dirt roads. The three property owners on the 200-metre section between Dath Henderson Road and Tumbacourt offered to pay for that section of road to be sealed by a spray seal application to a width of 7 metres

8.1 ALAN DEERING ¶

▶ 00:15:02

00:16:00 by a licensed and certified contractor. This is the same service and width of most sealed hinterland roads, including the road within the sex, Dath Henderson Road, an 80-kilometre-an-hour road. The eastern-most section of road has the most amount of traffic on the road, with nine properties from Tumbacourt, including Noosa Polo, exclusively passing these three properties. The approximate vehicle count is 300 per day, with 20 per cent being heavy vehicles. The response from council is then planning and design, delivery manager Craig Eldridge to our offer was, approving a sealed road at less than nine-metre width on Croy Mountain Road would directly contradict council's endorsed Noosa plan. And while there is some expectation from the residents of Croy Mountain Road to ultimately undertake sealing works for the full length of this road,

00:17:00 council is under no obligation to do so, and the traffic data does not support an upgrade at this time. Under the 10-year capital program in 2028-29 years, $1.85 million is budgeted for carriageway widening on the sealed western end of Croy Mountain Road. It definitely seems that there is a Noosa Council policy to not seal dirt roads. Noosa is an Inesco Biosphere Reserve, where people strive to live in harmony with nature. I'm appalled that if under the Noosa plan, there is support for nine-metre wide highways to traverse the hinterland. The residents have not been consulted on this issue. They don't want or need highways in the hinterland. What they want is sealed roads that complement the rural nature of why they live there.

00:18:00 Narrower roads with traffic calming would suit a biosphere status. A last word for the wildlife. There are too many wildlife vehicle strikes on wildlife as it stands. Some killed instantly. Some injured to die an agonisingly slow death. Why increase the risk for wildlife by constructing racetracks in the hinterland? My question. Noosa Council is guided by, and not dictated, by the Australian standards, AusRoads Standards Guidelines. Also, the Department of Main Roads Planning and Design Manual. So the Noosa plan that states that when sealing dirt roads, they must be no less than nine metres, is a Noosa Council initiative. Does Noosa Council agree that any future sealing of dirt roads in the Noosa Shire

00:19:00 will be to a minimum width of nine metres? Director Walsh: Noosa Council is guided by, but not strictly bound to, professional standards, like the AusRoads Standards and Guidelines, the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Planning and Design Manual, but also the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, which is IPWEA, Lower Order Road Design Guidelines. These documents provide best practice frameworks, but local governments like Noosa Council have the autonomy to adopt higher or more tailored standards based on local priorities, environmental considerations, and community expectations. You are correct that the Noosa plan and associated infrastructure policies specifies minimum carriageway and shoulder widths for various road classifications for Noosa Shire.

00:20:00 We can vary from these specifications for a specific project requiring engineering justice, to enable Council support. Notably, the IPWEA Lower Order Road Design Guidelines, updated recently in 2024, specifies a sealed carriage width of 5.5 metres when traffic volumes are low, and provides a very good reference to inform any future detailed design for lower order unsealed roads across Noosa Shire. Council can also consider this recently updated document in any future review of the Noosa plan. And associated infrastructure policies. Separately, I also note that following various representations from the community, Council has initiated a review of Council's approach to management of unsealed roads, with broader consideration of environmental, community benefit, and traffic safety matters to more fully inform future prioritisation and budget submissions for road sealing,

00:21:00 of course subject to Council budget approval. Thank you. Speaker 6: Question two. I'm not finished yet. Background. Road dust, especially fine particle dust, poses health risks including respiratory issues like asthma, chronic and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks and reduced heart function, with more serious effects from long-term exposure. The developing bodies of children are more vulnerable to air pollutants. Noosa Council states there is between over 170 kilometres and over 200 kilometres of dirt roads, some with heavy traffic use, which creates, especially after the annual re-sheeting has occurred, major dust problems for nearby residents.

00:22:00 Noosa Council officers do not seem to comprehend the serious health issues emanating from dust inhalation. In December 2016, Brian O'Connor wrote, while Council sympathises with your concerns regarding dust, this is an unfortunate by-product of gravel roads and not a safety issue. This situation has been exasperated by the dry weather. Noosa shired experience over the winter months and should reduce with recent rain. Also in June 25, 2025, he wrote, we strive to minimise dust through regular grading and dust suppression techniques, which help to reduce the amount of loose gravel. He also goes on to give tips for residents, such as planning vegetative screens, utilise water filters to remove pollutants, and build away from areas prone to dust nuisance.

00:23:00 Thank you. There is no recognition of dust as a health issue from Noosa Council. Also, the cost of trying to deal with this problem falls on the residents. Grading is not regular and does not alleviate dust. There are no dust suppression techniques applied. Noosa Council failed in their expensive legal action against cord walls to have their trucks removed from the road during school bus hours. Obviously out of concern for safety. There is no such concern from Council of the serious health effects of small particle airborne road dust on children. To my knowledge, there has been only one case of dust at present being used by Noosa Council. It was on the last unsealed section of Dath Henderson Road about 20 years ago. It was donated to Council. It worked well. Presumably Noosa Council rates cost over the health of its ratepayers on dirt roads.

00:24:00 Thank you. Question. Noosa Council employees, such as plant operators, are required to undergo a mandatory silica test every 12 months. Noosa Council recognise the workplace risks of airborne dust, but totally ignore the health risks of airborne dust to rateboats living on dirt roads. Why hasn't Noosa Council addressed the dust issues of the residents living on dirt roads in the short term? Well, I think it's important to show I at least add in dust suppressant in water trucks when annual re-sheeting of dirt roads. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Dearing. This is Director Walsh. Director Walsh: Thank you, Alan, for the question. It's a long answer, so I think it's quite important to put on the public record. And this will be distributed to you, Alan, and it will be part of the Council minutes as well. Thank you. So, in terms of health risk, Council has undertaken a technical assessment of the potential health risks associated with silica dust generated from unsealed gravel roads

00:25:00 within the Noosa Council region. It has evaluated the material composition, maintenance practices, and environmental exposure context, referencing applicable standards and research findings. Crystalline silica, which is abbreviation SiO2, primarily in the form of polypropylene quartz, is a naturally occurring mineral found in many geological materials, including sand, clay, and gravel. Respirable crystalline silica, also known as RCS, is a known occupational hazard in industries involving cutting, crushing, or drilling of silica-containing materials. However, the context of road dust from unsealed surfaces, particularly those maintained using natural gravel and recycled asphalt, differs significantly from high-risk occupational environments where RCS, or Respirable Crystalline Silica, may be present. Noosa Council maintain their unsealed road networks using natural gravel blends and recycled

00:26:00 asphalt pavement. These materials are selected in accordance with the Queensland Department of Transport Main Roads MRT SO5 Unbound Pavements and the AusRoads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 6 Unsealed Pavements. These standards ensure the materials meet performance criteria and the requirements for the use of the materials in the area, such as the California Bearing Ratio, Shrinkage Product and Grading Coefficient, which directly influence dust generation and stability. In terms of health risk exposure, unsealed roads in these regions typically carry low traffic volumes between 30 and 500 vehicles per day. Dust exposure is intermittent, outdoor, and dispersed, significantly reducing concentration compared to enclosed occupational settings. A New Zealand Transport Agency study found that, while there is a significant increase in the risk of dust from unsealed roads in the area, the risk of dust from unsealed roads can be present, respirable silica levels were generally low and not linked to adverse health outcomes in ambient settings.

00:27:00 NIOSH evaluations of dirt road maintenance found no aeronite and only occasional silica exceedances, primarily in active roadwork zones, not general public exposure. The Workplace Exposure Standard for RCS, or Respirable Silica, in Australia is 0.05mg per cubic metre for 8 hour TWA ambient exposure from unsealed roads, and is not known to exceed this threshold in South East Queensland. Based on current material usage, maintenance practices and environmental exposure conditions, there is minimal to no health risk from silica dust generated by unsealed gravel roads in the Noosa Council region. There is no confirmed evidence of harmful silica dust concentration in these areas, and no recorded public health impacts attributable to road dust. The use of natural gravel and recycled asphalt, combined with routine grading and dust suppression, ensures compliance with the engineering and environmental standards.

00:28:00 In terms of testing its workforce, Noosa Council tests the workers that are exposed to respirable crystalline silica , such as concrete cutting, drilling and crushing works, which is approximately 50 workers. Crews working on our unsealed roads, such as grader crews and plant crews, are not tested due to the low risk profile. In terms of dust management for the community, Council's current dust mitigation strategies include routine grading and re-sheeting based on traffic volume and environmental conditions. Use of impervious gravel blends, such as recycled road profiles where possible, and available to reduce water ingress and dust lift off. Community education sheets recommending various practices, including vegetative screening to reduce dust impacts near residences. Council has explored the use of dust suppressants, as noted in the question, and can advise as follows. Dust suppression chemical treatments can be used to treat problematic areas, and are commonly

00:29:00 used in intensive industrial and mining applications. The treatment is usually only effective for approximately three months, and can make the roads slippery when it rains, as they are commonly hydrophobic and cause water to pond on the surface, causing possible safety issues. These chemicals are powerful and would need to be applied with great prudence, to ensure that the treatment is effective, as could have adverse environmental implications if overused, particularly pertinent in environmentally sensitive areas of Noosa Shire. The high cost of the treatment, short-term benefits, and the need for regular reapplication mean this treatment is cost prohibitive for application in Noosa Shire, which has 200 kilometres of unsealed roads. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Director Wach. The next two questions are from Mrs Patricia Spicer. Mrs Spicer, would you like to come to lectern, and your questions will be answered by Kim Rawlings, Director of Strategy and Environment. Pat Spicer: My name is Pat Spicer. Through the Chair. Background information. In Council Resolution 20th of January 2025, Council resolved, in accordance with Council

8.2 PATRICIA SPICER ¶

▶ 00:29:58

00:30:00 Resolution on the 16th of May 2024, approve all remediation and subdivision works required to account for the impact of the impact of the impact of the impact of the impact of the sector, per??????..., for the delivery of the revised subdivision layout contained in Attachment I to the report, and support advancing the subdivision and remediation works subject to securing a loan facility whilst continuing to pursue grant funding opportunities. The Queensland state government's State Development Infrastructure and Planning announced a residential activation fund. Round 1 focuses on projects that are ready to proceed now with $500 million of the $2 billion fund available. It provides funding to get infill and green-filled land ready for new housing developments through the delivery of trunk and essential infrastructure,

00:31:00 including water supply, sewerage, stormwater, power, telecommunications, transport, for example roads. By addressing these infrastructure needs, the fund ensures residential housing developments can proceed without delay. Eligibility for local government for developers and landowners. One common criteria is projects must commence construction within 12 months and be completed in three years. Round 1 applications opened on the 7th of April, 2022. Closed on the 23rd of May, 2025. An announcement will be made in July, 2025. The residential activation fund supports Queensland's plan to build 1 million new houses by 2044. By funding trunk and essential infrastructure, it helps developments proceed more quickly and efficiently.

00:32:00 My question. Has Noosa Council applied for a grant towards infrastructure costs through the residential activation fund in relation to 64 Lake McDonald Drive? Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mrs. Fison. Director Rawlings? Thank you. Director Rawlings: Have a pat. Thank you for your question. Thank you. Council has applied for a grant via the residential activation fund for the enabling infrastructure and civil works for the site. The Queensland Government is making progressive announcements on the residential activation fund funding and we look forward to an announcement on the outcome of Noosa's application. Thank you. Pat Spicer: Background information. Resolution 16th of May, 2024. Disposal of land for community housing. Negotiate, finalise and execute a contract for the remediation works

00:33:00 for the sum generally outlined in the report. And 5. Enter to negotiate, finalise and execute a contract for the subdivision works for the sum generally outlined in the report. Council resolution on the 17th of July, 2025. That Council award contract number CN24802 for 62 Lake McDonald Drive remediation and subdivision works to Palmgrove Holdings Pty Ltd. Trading as Caruthers. Contracting as follows. A combined lump sum price of $3,091,486.08 excluding GST and schedule the rates to undertake separable portion 1 remediation and major earthworks. A lump sum price of $2,684,000.

00:34:00 $542.27 excluding GST to undertake separable portion 2 subdivision works. Question. As contract details have been released and remediation work has commenced, did the tender price for the remediation work and subdivision work at 6264 Lake McDonald Drive match the estimates? Mayor Wilkie: Director Rawlings. Director Rawlings: Thanks again Pat for that question. Very brief response. The tender price came in slightly above estimates but within budget. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Director Rawlings. Councils now we have a 10 minute adjournment and we'll be back at 10.45. Speaker 2: Thank you.

00:47:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move a motion, notified motion, that council review its communication strategy for future planning scheme amendments and consider undertaking direct and tailored communication approach to public consultation to each landowner to make them aware of the changes and where to easily access information to understand what the changes mean for them and to request a report to a future council meeting outlining details on a possible communication strategy

9 MAYORAL MINUTES ¶

▶ 00:47:35

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

10 NOTIFIED MOTIONS ¶

▶ 00:47:41

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

10.1 Enhancing Future Public Notification for Planning Scheme Provision Changes ¶

▶ 00:47:44· Carried 7-0 · 1 division from council's minutes

00:48:00 and expenditure, and expenditure required. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't know if there's a difference between what's on screen and what was in our agendas. Was that those additions added within 70 days before the meeting? Councillor Lorentson: The changes were made 48 hours ago. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So they've been made. So by the standing orders upon the order, no changes can be made to a notified motion. Mayor Wilkie: Just to point out that we could move the original version of the notified motion and then amend it with the writing in red. So this gets fairly red. So Councillor Lorentson, would you like to move? Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to move the original motion. Yes. Councillor Stockwell is quite right. Yes, that's right. Yes. That council review its communication strategy for future planning scheme amendments. Yes. And consider undertaking direct and tailored communication approach to public consultation

00:49:00 to each landowner to make them aware of the changes and where to easily access information to understand what the changes mean for them. Mayor Wilkie: I think we may have a second for that, please. Second for debate. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to just speak to it. This motion comes directly out of the recent planning scheme amendments. And I'm happy to speak to it. I'm going to start by saying that we all know how much time and effort went into that process. Council extended consultation. Council used multiple channels. And they made sure that every legislative requirement was met. In many respects, Council actually went above and beyond what was required. But what we also saw during those amendments is that despite our best efforts, something is still not working. We had petitions. We had submissions. And we had genuine feedback. And we had concern from residents who felt that they'd only discovered key changes very late in the process.

00:50:00 For example, the meeting density amendments had a real impact on what could be built in certain neighbourhoods, yet many residents told us they weren't aware of the changes until the consultation period was almost over. When I door-knocked in affected areas, the overwhelming response I heard was simple. We didn't know. When provision changes of that scale, changes that materially affect people's lives, changes that affect what landowners can do with their property, slip by unnoticed, it tells us something important. That the way that we're communicating isn't working as well as it needs to. And part of the problem is that the changes are buried in long, highly technical documents that most people simply can't be expected to interpret. Even when they're advertised, they can be very difficult to identify, and the people most affected can miss them altogether. Under legislation, direct notification, which is letters, letters that are sent to the property

00:51:00 owners, are only required when zoning and overlay changes are made or proposed. Provision changes in zones, like restrictions on what can be built or how land can be used, aren't covered by that requirement. Council is not required to give property owners that are impacted by provision changes any letters. And yet, provision changes can have as much, if not more, impact on property rights and value. That's why we need to look at going further. Our corporate plan commits us to excellence and continuous improvement. This motion is simply about putting those principles into practice. It's about taking lessons from the most recent amendments and making sure this doesn't happen again. For example, by adopting a more direct and tailored approach to notifying land owners of provision changes to provide clarity, to strengthen trust, and to make sure simply

00:52:00 that our community genuinely understands how changes affect them. So Councils, I'm just putting this on the table, and I hope you will support this motion that recognises, firstly, that Council already does a great deal to meet and explore the But that system itself is not giving residents the clarity they deserve and that we do need to do more. So thank you councillors for considering the motion and again I hope you support the motion in front of us so that we can continue improving how we communicate and work with our community. Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Phillips: I'm happy to move the amendment that Councillor Lorentson had on the addition. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: And request that the following words be added to the motion as follows.

00:53:00 And request a report to a future council meeting outlining the details on a possible communication strategy and expenditure required. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll second. Councillor Wilson you've seconded that. We should speak to it at the time. Councillor Phillips: Very quickly. I would assume that Councillor Lorentson would have done some due diligence with the Director and the Outcome CEO that gave why that was coming to us but understand the standing order. So it's really just to make sure that the entire notified motion that she's listening to is seen today. Thanks and I'll speak to the notified motion when everyone else has spoken. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Alright. So look I'll support the amendment, our standing order to say that a notified motion substantially affects the level of councillor services that ought to be subject of a report so councillors can be apprised of the expenditure required and make a decision accordingly.

00:54:00 This would, as we've read about a thousand letters were sent out, it was a very extensive consultation process, there was a very high level of submissions to the public interest. This is a very engaged community. And this would have effectively, if it involves tailored communications to possibly every household, it would have taken a number of letters written from about a thousand to potentially 30,000, so there's an exponential, potentially an exponential increase in expenditure required so this amendment is very appropriate. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. I'll provide the opposite view, I won't be supporting the amendment for the same reason I won't be supporting the motion. I'll provide the opposite view, I won't be supporting the amendment for the same reason I won't be supporting the motion. The amendment asks staff to prioritise work as a result of something that happened a couple of years ago. That particular section of staff have a huge workload and they're working on incredibly important things that the community have been calling for us to get finished.

00:55:00 The time to consider a communication strategy and expenditure on a planning scheme review is when that is in draft stage. The time to consider a communication strategy and expenditure on a planning scheme review is when that is in draft stage. There is no need to pass a motion. I get the impression that it will happen and regardless of whatever this motion says, the councilors sitting around the table at the time of the next Scheme Amendment will make the decision. Nothing about what's in this amendment will change that. Councillor Phillips: Councillor S尾 Can I ask a quick question which I think might be to the Acting CEO. Is there a potential that we will – I get the impression that the amendments are probably I spoke actually it might be through to the Director Rawlings. We potentially will see in our term another round of amendments come if they're being worked on now.

00:56:00 Director Rawlings: Through the Chair, thanks for the question. Yes, it is very likely that this Council will see another round of amendments. As advised last week, the amendment processes are ongoing all the time. So this process will wrap up amendment number two, but we are already in train for amendment number three. And given the time that they can take, it is important when amendments are off with the State that we're still continually looking at what's coming down the line or what new strategies or new information has come in. To continually improve the planning scheme. So, yes. Mayor Wilkie: Follow-up question. That could potentially involve an amendment that derives from an aspect of this whole package of amendments that councillors may not entirely be happy with.

00:57:00 Director Rawlings: Yes, absolutely. That package could include... Mayor Wilkie: Elements of this scheme. Elements of this package. Councillor Finzel: Yes. That's not what the motion is about. Bob. Okay. Through the Chair, for clarity today, can you please raise your question? I'm struggling to understand what we're trying to achieve here. I didn't understand your question. What information are you trying to get clarification on, please? Mayor Wilkie: It was a follow-up question from Councillor Phillips about the future planning scheme amendments that are already in chain. Director Rawlings: So, just a general response. A future planning scheme amendment process can include any issues Council would like to be considered in that package. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson. Just a question to the Director of Planning, Richard MacGillivray.

00:58:00 We had an open discussion about this and I think this... I think six months I've been going to and fro from advocacy pieces. It's just stayed on public notification to what Council can do internally. My question to you is that, do you think the amendment poses onerous obligations in terms of resourcing for staff and... That's a good question. Oh, excuse me. Director Rawlings, excuse me. And are there software applications that can also provide better communications in terms of communicating... Mayor Wilkie: I'm only going to allow one aspect of that question. It's unfair to ask staff whether they think this change would be onerous or not. Yeah, no worries. But your question about software that might assist is... Director Rawlings: So, that part is Richard. The first part was me.

00:59:00 Speaker 5: Yes, through the chair. In terms of the software, there are a range of software tools available at the moment. And some councils have adopted tools like Development Eye, which is a software tool that people can search up property information. They can also register for alerts, so new applications lodged. There isn't a solution as such that directly notifies residents of planning scheme amendments today that I'm aware of. But certainly from an awareness around development applications that are lodged and submitted and decided, a community can register on a portal such as that, and that will give them automatic alerts around when those applications are lodged. So, it wouldn't necessarily address planning scheme submissions at this date. That would require a new piece of software to be built to automatically notify all residents, and would require a registration database that people would have to opt in to receive that notification, because you'd need their email address or contacts. Councillor Lorentson: So, it's possible?

01:00:00 Speaker 5: Through the chair, it's possible to procure software to do that function. Director Rawlings: I just need to add to that. The software that exists requires the community to opt in. So, it doesn't address the issue of those who, in your background to this, don't know about it. So, if they've already opted in to be made aware of changes or development applications, then they're engaged in the process. My understanding is your motion, what sat behind it, was for those who weren't aware of those sorts of changes. Councillor Lorentson: Absolutely. And opportunities to, through direct notification, whether it's letters or otherwise, to make sure that they're notified of any changes. Mayor Wilkie: So, Thea? Council picks up. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I have a question, and just to clarify, given we're about excellence and continuous improvement. We're looking at possible communication strategy.

01:01:00 No one here from comms, so it seems like outside of the planning, it's a comms strategy. So, is that correct? Councillor Lyons, can you give a clarification about where you are? Is it a communication strategy through the comms department that you're seeking? Councillor Lorentson: I think the expertise will actually come from the director of strategy and environmental services. And she will direct comms. Mayor Wilkie: Right. So, we have... Councillor Finzel: Well, then I do have, seek further clarification on capacity, given that we are fully aware of the impacts on the communications team. When we go back to what they've had to work on and how that's affected a lot of their decision making throughout this term. In your opinion then, or through the CEO, what is the capability of the staff? What is the capability of the business to proceed forward with a comms strategy? And how will that impact future decision making?

01:02:00 Which is what we've seen in this term. It's pushed out the DMP. It had implicated... Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I would just like to step in at this point and say that what's being requested is a report that will outline the resources required for a possible communication strategy and the expenditure required. We need the report to understand that. I hope that helps. We're not asking them to do it. We're not asking them to introduce a communication strategy and allocate resources. We're asking for a report so counsellors can make an informed decision about the impact on the capacity of the team. It's my understanding. That's correct. Councillor Finzel: Could I seek clarification then? Because I think even to bring the report before us takes staff and time to actually deliver in a report. If not the strategy. Thank you Mr Chair. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Speaker 3: Thank you through the Chair. Councillor Finzel.

01:03:00 I'll do a partial answer to that. And Director Rawlings will complete it. Councillor Phillips's amendment is correct in line with the... Councillor Lorentson: Lawrence and... No. Speaker 3: No. It was Councillor Phillips's amendment that a report be requested given the... What's sitting within the original motion. It does... No. It does not commit staff to a significant amount of work and potential cost. So therefore in line with the standing orders this report enables staff to undertake that work so that counsellors can understand the extent of work and the cost. Director Rawlings you might be able to comment on the amount of work that will be required to prepare the report. Director Rawlings: There's two aspects to that. Preparing a communication strategy to support a planning scheme amendment. This is a requirement and a standard process. And it is something that we would do. And it is something that is reported to council to say this is the scope of the amendment

01:04:00 package and therefore this is the, you know, aligned and complementary communication strategy. Do you agree with this council? So you see... You see that as part of any process. As a standard part of the process and a requirement actually under the state government guidelines and rules. The... The preparation of the... The preparation of a council report to provide an indication of resources and what it would be required. There is some work in that. Obviously it's... There'll need to be some scenarios potentially in that because it will depend. It will depend on the scope of the amendments and how far and wide council would want to do direct and tailored letters as the current wording of the amendment says. You know, that could be... That could be months of work. Months of work. And... And substantial cost.

01:05:00 So, yeah. It's a little hard to exactly say at this point. But I anticipate there's some substantial work in... In the process. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. I want to commend Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips for bringing this forward. I do think it is... You know, it's very important. It's a high priority when we're serving in a contemporary council that is really concerned with giving voice to our beneficiaries and supporting to protect our democracy. I guess my reluctance is that... Is this the right forum to bring this matter before us today when it includes capabilities of staff? We're also... It also includes budget, money, impacts. My concern is also around timelines to deliver.

01:06:00 Because as we're well aware, if things come up along the way, that can push things down the track. And we've got a community waiting for, you know, information and decisions to be made. Overall, I support it because I think it ensures that we have... We stick to our themes of environment, liveability, prosperity, future, and excellence, which is really important. I will vote for it today, but I do think this is not the best forum to do it. I do believe it is through larger discussions and preparations. As we all know, notice of motions and things like that push these... The staff further to deliver things that we've read through this process, which we are well able to do. And we can do, and I respect that process. I do think that the forum would be better, but I'm happy to support this today, given the value that we're able to give to our community to ensure their voice is heard in these matters. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment?

01:07:00 Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? No. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, no, no. Closing is an amendment. Councillor Phillips. No, Councillor Phillips, speak up. Councillor Phillips: No, I won't close. I will just wait for the full motion. Mayor Wilkie: Yep. Okay. Put Councillor Phillips' amendment to the vote. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wilson, Phillips, Lorentson, Finzel and Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Wegener. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener. Councillor Lorentson: Is against or for? Mayor Wilkie: Against. So the amendment is carried. We now go back to the original motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd like to move an amendment. Councillor Stockwell. And if you can leave those words on the screen or capture them. I'll be changing that. Thanks, Cathy. Thank you. Thank you. No.

01:08:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, and so I just added to what the next one would be. Oh, disappeared again. Let the following words be added to the motion as follows, and it's after the word meeting, comma. Director Walsh: It won't come up until I type it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, once the substantive changes proposed in any future scheme amendment are known.

01:09:00 Any future scheme or planning scheme amendment. Are known, comma. Councillor Lorentson: Taking out that outlining thing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Beg your pardon? No, no, just a comma. After known, and then continue on outlining details on possible communications strategy and expenditure. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to second. Okay. You moved the original one. Excuse me, I can't move. Councillor Finzel: I'll be the second for the debate. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillors, we just heard from the Director that the motion as it stands would be a substantive requirement on staff.

01:10:00 We know that any communications strategy has to be focused on what we want to communicate. Until we know what we want to communicate, it is totally a waste of time. And a waste of ratepayers' money to talk about a communications strategy. Until we know what those substantive changes are, how do we know who should be informed about it? How do we know what are the appropriate, are they people who live here and will see local media? Or are they people who are likely to be further afield? So, the only sensible way to do this is to do it when we know what we want to change in the planning scheme. I have no problem with the concept that we will look with greater rigour at who we advise. But we do it at the right time. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. I'm happy to speak to it. And I support the amendment.

01:11:00 It achieves exactly the outcome that the motion was intended to achieve. So, it was just a tweaking of words. And I thank Councillor Stockwell for the addition. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Any other councillors wish to speak to Councillor Stockwell's amendment? Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes, I think. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. I think this is a critical and excellent addition. I think it gives clear direction to the staff and speaks to the matters that we talked about around, or I spoke about, around is this the right forum to do this. I think the addition to this amendment put forward by Councillor Phillips probably brings us that balance. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Stockwell, you wish to close. Put the amendment those in favour. That's Councillor... Aye. That's unanimous. The amendment is carried. Go back to the original notice of motion to which only Councillor Lorentson has spoken.

01:12:00 Any other councillors wish to speak to the original notice of motion? Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson, for bringing this motion to us. Perfect timing given the items on the agenda today with the consideration of the scheme amendments and reflection on that recent consultation process. I support the motion as we have recent examples of residents not being aware of proposed planning scheme amendments that significantly impact their land despite council following a compliant and very thorough process. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Stockwell. A response from council to feedback on the planning scheme amendments in December 2024 reads, in preparing news of plan 2020, council sought to make the use of a dwelling house an inconsistent use in the medium and high density residential zones as well as the tourist accommodation zone. This was not possible because of legislative provisions. Council continued to lobby for this to be changed. Since amendments to the planning regulation 2017 and December 2022, local planning instruments

01:13:00 can make the use of a dwelling house accessible to residents. As part of the news of plan 2020, property owners subject to a zone change were identified and notified by letter. For many, the zone change didn't affect the allowed land use because the rates hadn't yet changed and therefore that meant little resistance. However, amendment two to the scheme changed the provisions within the medium and high density zones following the amendments to the planning regulation 2017 being enacted in December 2022 that council had lobbied for. So not a zone change. But a change in the land. A change to what is consistent or inconsistent use in that zone for future development. As there was no change in zoning, affected residents were not specifically notified. But this change was potentially more significant than a zone change as it can restrict the ability to build a house.

01:14:00 Residents only found out through general consultation on the amendments and some still don't know. They didn't have a chance to submit their feedback. But over 50 people did object with individual submissions. And 960 signed a petition. How many more could there have been if property owners had been individually notified? Once a change to the planning scheme is implemented, property owners have one year to make an application for development under the previous scheme. This is a short timeframe for residents who didn't know about the change. They need it within that year to find out about the change and then have the money and the experts available to make such an application under the superseded scheme. When Noosa Council is using new regulations to make a change that no other council in Queensland has implemented and has potential to significantly impact an owner's rights on their land, individual owners must be consulted and notified. A general consultation process is not enough. Residents should not be caught unawares on such significant matters.

01:15:00 They should be part of the decision process. Sunshine Coast Council is currently undergoing community consultation on its planning scheme amendments. And I know it's a much bigger council with more resources, but their interactive website helps owners to identify whether their property is affected by the changes with an interactive tool that has information specific to each address. The technology is there to support user friendly information for those who want to find out which changes affect them and noting again that that would mean they would need to be aware that the process is happening. But to be equitable for all, individual notification must be provided where significant changes are proposed. There's a budget for community consultation and it must be directed to inform those affected. If we can find a budget to send out 40,000 postcards on the DNP, then surely we can write to every ratepayer about changes affecting their property, zone by zone. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Wilson. May the Councillor speak to the notice of motion. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: I'm going to speak to the notice of motion.

01:16:00 I'm going to start by saying I'm really glad the community elected you into this role. And then I want to say thank you to Councillor Lorentson for bringing the notified motion and I'm going to speak to it. First thing I'm going to start with section 4 of the Local Government Act. Transparent and effective processes and decisions made in the public interest. So the reality is not everyone reads Council websites, follows social media or can interpret lengthy planning documents. Other residents. Who are less digitally connected. Were left in the dark. And when people asked what did this mean for me. The fact they needed to rely on neighbours or petitions to understand. Shows that we fell short in the communication model used. Residents should never feel blindsided by changes that affect their property rights. Or neighbourhood character.

01:17:00 Consultation must be genuine. Easy to understand. And accessible to everyone. I'm going to speak to the notice of motion. In public commentary residents from medium density suburbs like Moosaheads and Sunrise Beach expressed surprise and frustration that rules for their properties could change. And it led to a stronger sense that consultation can be a tick-the-box exercise rather than genuine dialogue. And this is the gap where people in unaffected areas showed awareness. That had been pointed out as a shortcoming in the amendment 2 process. And the true test of effectiveness. Is whether the average informed resident understood what the amendment would do. So given the evidence confusion, last minute awareness, petitions and the need for extension. It appears that the communication did not fully succeed in making the practical implications clear for everyone. We need to be committed if we are a council that changes rules and touches peoples homes and communities.

01:18:00 That they are told clearly, directly and in plain language. That's how we respect our community members who pay their rates and deserve that level of service. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Phillips. Just a technical error on my part councillors. Stand up. On my part councillors. I permitted Councillor Finzel to second Councillor Stockwell's amendment. And Councillor Finzel was the seconder of the original motion. So with your permission I'll second Councillor Stockwell's motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mr Chair I think it would be wise to re-vote on that amendment. Mayor Wilkie: We'll bring it up. We'll just pause this particular item. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just technically it would make that vote ineligible. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Yeah. Pat Spicer: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

01:19:00 Councillor Finzel: There we go. Thank you. I just wanted to acknowledge then that the CEO that thank you for picking up that technicality that keeps us all within our standing in alms. Mayor Wilkie: Okay so I put there the amendment which was unanimously endorsed against in the form. Those in favour? Tom? Speaker 1: Aye. Mayor Wilkie: That's unanimous. Thank you. We now go back to the original notice of motion. To which Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Wilson and Councillor Phillips have spoken. Anybody else wish to speak at the original notice of motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Since I said I wasn't going to vote for the standard of motion and now that I've made that change I'm quite happy with it. I understand the driver for what brought this forward and I agree that we do put a sharper focus on

01:20:00 what are the changes with any amendment that are likely to be important to individuals as being a driver for our future decisions. So I'm happy to let it go through as is currently in the motion. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Any others wish to speak to the notice of motion? Councillor Lorentson you wish to close. Councillor Lorentson: I will. I'll keep it brief. There's a lot of discussion about whether this is the right forum. And I just want to express a notified motion. A notified motion allows councillors, gives us the right to bring what's considered an emergent issue to council. Emergent. What does emergent issue mean? An emergent issue is a problem or threat that arises and requires immediate action and attention. Um

01:21:00 It's a consultation. When we're diluting or taking away property rights voluntarily from our residents that requires immediate action. We have an opportunity to do better and this is in my opinion the correct forum. It's timely. We have the adoption of the amendments in front of us and we can't disregard the petitions, the submissions. The people here in the gallery today, their voices matter and I respect and commend the councillors on good conversation here today. This was not a motion to criticise council. It was simply a motion to allow us to do a little bit better and also pay respect to those who have come to us and told us that they simply didn't know. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Those in favour? Yes. Sorry.

01:22:00 No. Councillor Lorentson is the final speaker so he's now put to the vote. All in favour? Aye. That's unanimous. It's carried. The next item comes to consideration of committee reports. And um Um And there's a plan amendment number two is being brought to direct the ordinary. And um And as chair I'm aware that there's been a request for this to be dealt with separately so I will move it. Seconded. I'm seconded. Councillor Stockwell. I'm just waiting to get our technology. Yes. It might be an internet connection. Okay. Okay.

01:23:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: While we're waiting, while we're waiting Mr Chair would it be appropriate to read out the first item that comes before the planning scheme that's being dealt with? Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Stockwell. The first item is referred to the general committee. It was planning applications decided by delegated refers. That was referred to the general committee. Thank you Councillor Stockwell. I'm just waiting to get the motion up on the screen. Councillor Lorentson: It's very, very slow. I'm sorry.

01:24:00 Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Who's the plan 2020 amendment number two? Okay, so I'll move that.

11.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 9 SEPTEMBER 2025 ¶

▶ 01:24:08

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

11.1.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – JULY 2025 ¶

▶ 01:24:13

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

11.1.2 NOOSA PLAN 2020 - AMENDMENT NO. 2 - COUNCIL ADOPTION ¶

▶ 01:24:54· Carried 4-3 · 1 division from council's minutes

01:25:00 Councillor Stockwell has seconded it. Yeah, I'm connected. Thank you, Councillors. In 2021, Noosa Council updated its 2017 housing needs assessment study to address... The review confirmed demand for residential dwellings in Noosa was very high. Those who didn't already own property may never be able to do so, and that there was a mismatch between small households, one or two people in large homes with three to four bedrooms. The availability of Noosa homes for permanent rentals had decreased and rents had increased exponentially. Incomes and wages for many within Noosa were not keeping up with the rising cost of housing and living. Around 80% of homes in Noosa were large separate houses, often with only one to two people in them. With units and retirement living comprising the minority. Businesses and other organisations were struggling to attract and retain staff who couldn't afford to live in the area, causing some businesses to downscale or even close.

01:26:00 COVID-19 and the Royal Commission into Aged Care had impacted the retirement sector, leaving operators with reduced capacity to invest in capital works, including construction of new developments for which they already had council approvals. The opportunity for additional social housing was found to be limited, and action by council was limited. It was deemed necessary before it could be delivered. In 2020, the 2021 study recommended council adopt a housing strategy with actions to improve housing choice and affordability, including amendments to the Noosa Planning Scheme, those before us. Advocacy to other levels of government, partnership with the state and community housing providers to deliver social and affordable housing, and with state and federal governments to provide extra funding commitments. In November 2022, after Shire wide public consultation, Noosa Council endorsed this housing strategy and set actions to advance us towards delivering greater housing choice, diversity and affordability. State and housing providers are already in the process of delivering social housing, thanks to partnerships with them, and the state and federal government are unlocking funds for this purpose.

01:27:00 Former Mayor Clare Stewart, and councilors at the time, rightly described what Noosa was facing as a housing emergency. It was unanimously agreed we would work with all levels of government, community and industry to do all we can to address the crisis. That's what these amendments seek to do. These amendments have more than seven weeks of community consultation and two state interest checks over three years. These changes are key to delivering council's housing strategy goals and the short-stay accommodation monitoring report's recommendations. They provide for a greater range and supply of housing, including more smaller and more affordable dwellings, including tiny homes. The changes make short-term visitor accommodation an inconsistent use in our medium-density, high-density, rural residential communities. This helps ensure more housing is kept for permanent residents, and prevent further conversion of entire homes to short-stay accommodation businesses. In response to demand from churches and crisis service providers,

01:28:00 the changes mean tiny homes and other relocated affordable housing can now be placed on community facilities and church-owned land to provide temporary and affordable accommodation for families, women and children in crisis and need. The amendments will see part of the tourist accommodation zone resumed to residential and centre zones, so new development delivers housing for residents and key workers. The changes bring greater rigour to Noosa Business Centre zone development to create an integrated village, offering more homes and job opportunities. The amendments allow for a health and wellbeing precinct and Noosa District sports complex to support sports medicine, expansion of the Noosa Junction restaurant trading hours, and they improve resident amenity by reducing the height of large sheds close to property boundaries and urban areas like Tewantin, from nearly eight metres high down to 3.6 metres. The Deputy Premier approved the amendments, subject to several conditions, to drive delivery of the variety and size of new dwellings.

01:29:00 These include a change limiting duplexes and medium-density residential zones to sites under 600 square metres. This means lots of 600 square metres or more in the medium-density zone must house three or more dwellings rather than a duplex. In response to community feedback, we had sought to make duplexes consistent on medium-density lots up to 1,000 metres in size. The Minister's conditions, however, will drive an increase in the variety and size of dwellings and ensure better use of medium-density zone land, which meets the housing strategy objectives and ensures more dwellings in the appropriate zones. Houses will be in consistent use on land intended for units on medium-density residential lots over 500 square metres in size. Just on that, there are existing rights protections that means homes in these zones can be renovated and rebuilt to the same footprint. Rights to rebuild larger homes can be exercised via the superseded planning scheme. I understand this is a sticking point in this vast raft of amendments

01:30:00 and I urge Councillors not to throw out the whole package because of objections to one. We can address them through future planning scheme amendments if you so wish. The State changed planning legislation to allow in late 2022 in response to housing shortages. The other Queensland Council is currently changing its planning scheme, Sunshine Coast Council, is proposing single dwellings be an inconsistent use in medium-density residential zones regardless of the size of lots. These amendments evidence our commitment to ensure enough land for housing plus greater diversity and affordability to meet Noosa Shire's housing needs and State and Post dwelling targets. And lastly, these change will enable us to follow through on our promise to provide housing to those who don't have a voice in this very public debate. The least advantage to people in our community. Those that don't have the basic human right of a roof over their heads. Thank you.

01:31:00 Can the Councillors wish to speak to the motion or move an amendment. I understand there's some amendment. On the amendment. Councillor Phillips Yes. Councillor Lorentson: I'm just going to Councillor Phillips: Thanks Cathy. That item F be added to read F as part of regular monthly delegated reporting on development applications, numbers and decisions. Include additional metrics on numbers of superseded planning scheme applications. Mayor Wilkie: May we have a seconder? Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Phillips.

01:32:00 Councillor Phillips: Thank you. So I want to thank Director Rawlings for helping me with understanding the intention behind this. And one of the ways I try to get to an amendment is to explain why I'm asking for it in the first place and then we work backwards. One of the things that I was asking Director Rawlings about the amendment to was how I can easily explain to community where they can see the outcomes from the Noosa Plan 2020. And she brightly outlined housing strategy, housing monitor report, lots of different ways and I know it's there. But one of the lenses that I tried to put through this amendment was how reports are facing outwards to our community not inwards. Because I think the general consensus is Council know exactly what's going on.

01:33:00 But it's back to what we've been talking about today which is that clearer communication. And so the report already comes to us I understand with the planning applications. But this is really to be a little bit clearer in seeing whether the intention behind amendment 2 is delivering the outcomes to community. So have been asking for for so long. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Other Councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Finzel: Well, yes, I think this is a great addition. Thank you, Councillor Phillips for bringing that to the table today. I think that the more outward information for support of transparency and excellence in Council, I think I'll support anything that gives us further opportunities to engender trust in our community, to enable them to access information easily. So thank you for coming back today and preparing to support.

01:34:00 Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Any further discussion? Councillor Roberts. Councillor Lorentson: Just to highlight that I think it's really important because this sort of information does get lost in workshops and in internal Council conversations. Having an idea of how many superseded planning scheme applications, are made would actually just give us an insight into the effectiveness of the amendments. Also give us sort of a deep dive into how many people in the community want to retain their existing use rights and have the ability to actually make an application given how restrictive it is. So that incites valuable to me as a Councillor. And I think again, highlights to the community that there is an opportunity to retain existing use rights through an application under a superseded planning application.

01:35:00 So I'm happy to support and thank Councillor Phillips. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Phillips, do you wish to close? Councillor Phillips: No, thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, put the amendment. Those in favour? Aye. That's unanimous. Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Any other amendments? Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lars, do you have an amendment? No, no amendments. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell? Yeah, I'll speak to the amendment. Councillors, we're at the end of a very long process that has involved many thousands of hours of staff time, many thousands of hours of community input, and the expenditure of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. We're at the end of the process. And I'm just going to set the context of our decision.

01:36:00 Our decision is to make our determination whether the suite of planning scheme amendments are in the public interest. It's not whether we agree with one part or another. That time has passed. Those arguments have been had. Those positions were put to the Minister, and the Minister has made his final ruling with conditions. We don't have any ability to appeal the decision of the Minister. So it's a fairly easy decision for me, because there is no doubt that the planning scheme amendments are in the overwhelming community benefit. No doubt whatsoever. The amendments were put in place. Planning centres. Planning centres. Planning centres play sets and incentives to address the most pressing social and economic problem this Shire faces. And that's the housing crisis.

01:37:00 There is no doubt that, if passed, that this scheme will facilitate opportunities for genuine, affordable and community housing. There is no doubt that... Not adopting these amendments would be seen to be a breach of our commitment to the public and to the state government. Not approving them is really an invitation to the state to come and interfere with planning in Noosashire Moor to achieve what we're meant to achieve through the SEQ Regional Plan. There is no doubt that not approving the amendments would be seen to be a deliberate breach of the ministerial conditions that were placed on us when we adopted the Noosashire Plan 2020 and the reputational damage with that is unknown.

01:38:00 There is no doubt that not approving the scheme amendments would lead to the potential for more significant legal appeals on key sites that are subject to those ministerial conditions. And just one thing, the passing of the amendments would actually free up the land transfer at the Noosashire Business Centre such that the Council gets a transit hub and we have a million dollars worth of investment into re-vegetation to offset the clearing on that site on land of our choosing. Councillors. Our job, as we swore to do, is to make decisions in the public interest. It's not to represent on big issues like this, we have to consider is the overall benefits community outweighing any disbenefits and in my view it is clearly the case.

01:39:00 So I urge all Councillors to support the adoption. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Stockwell. I have a question to start. Yes. Yes. The State's in the middle of reviewing housing and employment targets. Can you explain what the State Government's review of the South East Queensland regional plan involves and where that process is currently at? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. It has no relevance to the matter in front of us. Mayor Wilkie: Can you rephrase your question, Councillor Launce, to make it relevant to the amendments clause? Councillor Lorentson: In terms of future amendments? Once the State finalises the new SEQ regional plan, how quickly would Council need to amend and use the plan to bring it into alignment? Director Rawlings: The State have just announced a review of the SEQ regional plan that was only reviewed

01:40:00 a year ago, 18 months ago. That process is just kicking off. And likely to stop. It's not clear exactly yet how long that review process will take. There's a commitment to collaborate with local governments on that review. It's focus is on housing, supply and employment. We have been advised of that. And been invited to be part of, you know, very involved in the process, which is good. So once that is completed, then it's up to the State to decide whether or not they want to amend it. There is a process that requires local governments to ensure their planning schemes comply with regional plans. That can take the form in different ways. It depends on where local governments are at. If there are, you know, if you could start a new amendment process, if there are existing amendment processes underway, you can align it.

01:41:00 So it really depends on where we're at in the next round of amendments. About, you know, how quickly. When we would have to comply with that. And then, you know, we would have to, you know, we would have to do that with regional plan changes. And, yeah, it will depend on the scope, scale. It's a little bit hard to really accurately answer that at this point. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, just a question following on from that. What do you foresee is, you know, a risk if we do not move forward today with these amendments, with the risk of states stepping over us and, you know, taking it into their own hands to ensure we align with that South East Queensland plan? Is that financial risk, social risk? What risks are we looking at? Director Rawlings: Through the Chair, Councillor Finzel, I think there are a number of risks that Council should

01:42:00 think about. And they cross a raft of matters, both in terms of strategy and policy outcomes that the Council have been wanting to achieve for many years around its housing strategy, around short-term accommodation. If these amendments were not to be adopted at this point, those strategies remain not implemented. So there's a risk there about not achieving the outcomes that our strategies say we will. There's a risk around, you know, potentially reputational risk around three years of work, and more than three years of work, to be honest. Three years in the process. And the significant amount of resources and funding that Council have invested in that work, that that, you know, be put aside.

01:43:00 There's a risk of unintended consequences. There's a whole lot of nuance in this package of amendments and has been developed over many years around many things. So not adopting on the basis of one provision or some provisions has risks that we probably don't fully understand yet in terms of the potential developers, landowners, investors, community who are, one, waiting to act on some of these new provisions. There are some red tape reduction elements of these provisions, so they would not be implemented. So there, yeah, there's a raft of risks. There is a, we have been able to, and you will recall, we have been able to add, to have our position to the State Government that these amendments seek, help achieve the dwelling targets in the current regional plan.

01:44:00 You know, let us get these amendments in before requiring Council to do any further amendments to its scheme because we, you know, we've made changes to increase dwelling supply potential. So that's been accepted so far at the State. If these amendments were not put in, then I think there is, you know, there is a risk that the State will be more directive with us. And, you know, I'm not sure what exactly that could look like, but we were definitely advised in the last regional plan process that it's okay for now, but you will be required, Noosa, to look harder at how you accommodate growth and dwelling targets going forward. If we weren't to, you know, if we weren't to... If we were to put these amendments in place, I think the risk of State intervention is,

01:45:00 will, will increase. Mayor Wilkie: Ms Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Through the Chair, then, just in line with that, we do a lot of benchmarking against other Councillors. It's common in our workshops, in our processes. That's critical information to inform our decision making. Can you remind me of other Councils where the State has stepped in and said, you know, we don't think you're doing enough? Remember, I think we did have that. I know it's a push, but it does happen. Director Rawlings: Yeah. So, I'm just going to have a little look over to the staff, but I think it might have been Redlands. Thank you. Redlands Council put forward their housing approach and their amendments, and were, yeah, the State intervened and said, no, no, not enough, not, no, you, yeah, we'll take that and do that process for you. So, there was State intervention there, specifically around housing.

01:46:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Just, just for clarity, are these changes being forced on us by State? Director Rawlings: No, these changes are not being forced on us by State, but what we are required to do, the planning schemes operate within the context of State legislation. So, the Queensland Planning Act sets up the framework, sets up the framework, sets up the framework and the process to, for local planning schemes, but ultimately a local planning scheme is a council, local government responsibility, but guided by State legislation, both the Planning Act, the Minister's rules and regulations, and that outline the process. As part of that process, any local planning scheme is to comply with State planning policies and to comply and align with regional plans, so the South East Queensland Regional Plan. So, no, we're not being forced, it's the council's, local government's responsibility

01:47:00 to maintain and amend its planning scheme and to keep it contemporary and responsive, but in doing that, we are required by legislation to ensure it aligns with State policy and that it aligns with regional planning. Mayor Wilkie: Council, to speak to the motion. Councillor McKenzie? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Just to refresh my memory, and I know it was raised at the P&E meeting and for those listening at home that may have missed that, what is the process for residents and land owners to help mitigate risk of where they feel that they haven't been heard or their future plans are at risk? What is the process around the application to make under the pre-existing planning scheme, please? You might ask the Director of Development and Red to respond to that.

01:48:00 Speaker 5: Through the Chair, happy to answer that question. Yeah, so there is a process called the superseded planning scheme request that can be lodged. There's a 12-month window from the date the amendments are adopted for a person to make a request. Council then has 30 business days to assess that request. And that request essentially is to be lodged an application under the former superseded planning scheme. So there's a 12-month window from the date of the decision of that superseded planning scheme request. There is a further six-month period for the, if supported, if approved, there's a further six months for that person to then lodge their development application for that particular application. That particular development type. Does that answer the question? So there's essentially an extra 12-month window to be, to lodge an application under the superseded application. So you can keep, yeah, you can apply under the former scheme.

01:49:00 Does that assist, answer your question for me? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, could I just ask a question to the Chair please? For sure. Just to clarify, then say for example there's individuals that have like a plan, a legacy plan for their family that they feel that this process mitigates their opportunity to actually do that. Like what, what is the threat or perceived threat of being able to achieve outcomes that may or may not be quite in the process or that it's, the timeframe is not applicable to achieve long-term dreams and outcomes that we all have with long-term residents that live here. Look at our home and our land as something that's, you know, we want to see that. Thank you Mr Chair for putting me back into line and thank you. Speaker 5: I will, I'll try and give you a short answer to that. Essentially properties that are already established and developments established has what's called

01:50:00 existing use rights. So the amendments don't have any impact on existing development that's established. So there's no impact there. It's really about if a person that's wanted to utilise provisions in the current scheme, the superseded scheme, they have a 12 month window to lodge a request to be considered under that. So they have an ability to exercise those rights if they feel like it's in their interest to lock in a framework or future development rights under a former scheme. They can do that through a superseded planning scheme request and they'll be assessed on its merits. And then there's a period of time for that development application to be lodged. But I'll probably leave Director Rawlings to talk more so around the, I guess the purpose of the scheme changes that are designed to meet obviously the future scheme requirements. So does that give you enough clarity councillor? Yes sir. Mayor Wilkie: Cool. Speaker 5: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Just a follow up question on that. There's, you mentioned if someone, a property owner could use the superseded planning scheme

01:51:00 application process if they wanted to increase the size and scale of their property. But there's also other rights that they have if they wanted to use the existing footprint. Could you expand on that please? Speaker 5: Yes. Through the Chair. Yeah. So as I mentioned earlier around existing use rights. So once a dwelling house is established essentially if for example there's a minor addition you want to make to the existing dwelling house or for example in the event of a fire for example. The house is burned to the ground and you need to rebuild, like for like you can do that under existing use rights. So the dwelling house is established as a, as its scale. I guess if you look to change the material scale of that property significantly it may need a development application and will be assessed under the new provisions at that time. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Wharton. Just a follow up question.

01:52:00 So under a superseded planning scheme application. You've got 12 months to lodge. Council says yes or no. You can or can't. But there's also another requirement. And can you clarify the currency period. My understanding is you've got two years to actually build or substantially build the property. Speaker 5: Through the Chair. Yes. So there are current what we call currency periods. So once a decision is made and let's say in the example a superseded planning scheme request is approved. There's a further six month period to lodge that development application. Once that development application is approved and for example if it relates to a dwelling house. There's a two year currency period generally attached which allows a person to substantially commence the works in that period. And for other types of development where a material change of use is approved it can be up to six years. So but for dwellings generally it's a two year period.

01:53:00 Mayor Wilkie: Can the Council speak to the motions? Councillor Morrison is on her feet. Councillor Lorentson: Just a question. I'm going to go back to the review of the South East Queensland regional plan. So for states in the middle of reviewing housing and employment targets. My question is should we be waiting for that direction given that what we're approving today is potentially provisional amendments? Director Rawlings: So just to be clear there is an existing South East regional. South East Queensland regional plan. That we are required to align with and new dwelling targets that came in last year. So these given the lag time of these amendments. We're still adjusting to those. To the current regional plan. The state are not in the middle of a regional plan review. They've just announced. Started it. A regional plan review. Just announced. So we've just had two meetings about it to understand the process and the timing.

01:54:00 So there's a lot to happen. Before. That process. You know. Kicks off and is in train. So. There's an existing South East regional plan that we have to comply with. These planning scheme amendments do that. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you for that Karen. Yes. If the councillors wish to offer an opinion on the amendments. Councillor Killips. I'll speak to it. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Okay. So like many of you, or actually all of you at this table, I want to see more housing options that are affordable to both and stiffel for our residents. I agree with the mayor about the fundamental right of having a roof over your head. Um. I also want to see more housing for our workers and our families. And it's years of holding a very respected, hard planning line from this council that

01:55:00 has contributed both positively. And potentially negatively to exactly where we are today. So my concern is not with the aims of the amendment package but with its substance and process. So let me outline why today I can't input conscious support amendment number two and the issues that led to oppose this amendment initially have not been addressed enough for me to support it today. We heard loud and clear from residents that they were worried about certain changes. They feared for their property rights, their neighbourhood character and whether these measures might actually make things worse. In response where substantial modifications made to assure those worries I don't feel they were. The core components of the amendment package remain as they are and yes there were some tweaks during December deliberations

01:56:00 last year. But since then no further refinements as Councillor Stockwell suggested from the state. The package fundamentally is unchanged from the one that I voted against last year and my position was not arbitrary. It was based on the principle and evidence last year or like they're all. Nothing in the interim has provided me with new clarity about the solutions that would justify a different outcome today. For decades this council has kept the dial in the environmental conservation corner that has defined Noosa as we see it today. If we keep it fixed there we can also risk the very thing that we set out to protect. The truth is we can't afford to do this without community support. And right now locals are being christ out, families are leaving, and the people replacing them actually have no lived history of decades of work that actually

01:57:00 built this place. That is the unintended unintended consequence unless we restore a balance between protecting the environment and keeping Noosa livable. We will actually fail at both. I've voiced it before and I'll voice it again that I do feel this amendment package could create more problems than it solves because we see Camberworks roll over year after year and I've yet to see the infrastructure plan that genuinely addresses what the potential new residents moving into new homes and I just can't put the cart before the horse. Council's already approved two new hotels in Noosa Junction yet where is our commitment to fix the traffic network in and out of that precinct? Where is the plan for waste and roads because the community have already told tell me in residential streets that they're being used for rat racing. There are no projects to slow and calm traffic until those

01:58:00 basic until those basics are addressed alongside these planning amendments. I can't feel comfortable comfortable that the unintended consequence could be more obvious more cars more people and fewer core council services delivered to community. Councillor Stockwell talked about reputational damage and I couldn't agree more because maintaining integrity and finally that's my most important part because it comes down to my integrity both mine and council's because last time I cast no to these amendments and I articulated those reasons and the reasons haven't been remedied so if I simply switch to yes then what would that say it would imply that my prior objections were hollow or merely political. And they weren't so I meant what I said my foremost duty to is to the people of Noosa Shire to ensure changes of this magnitude are done right by them consistency in service of good of public

01:59:00 good is a virtue not a vice. Councillors around this table this position holds responsibility because we warm the seat I urge you to consider this above everything else the long-term trust in this council if we vote this through today I fear my biggest my biggest fear is that we may win a short-term housing victory on paper but we will lose more of an eroding public's faith in us and that to me is more costly so therefore I'm going to absolutely respect the work that has gone in and that is why it is more challenging than I was expecting to stand up today. I oppose amendment two as it stands and let's go back as a group of leaders here at the table with our staff and our community industry experts and craft a legacy plan that we can all be proud of

02:00:00 one that delivers real outcomes without compromising the principles that makes Noosa so so special. Thank you Councillor Phillips. Mayor Wilkie: Very close to five minutes. Councillor Phillips: Good job thanks I hope all the minutes from last time. I might go under up my sleeve. Mayor Wilkie: Okay any other councillors wish to speak to the motion before this? I'll speak. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: I may need to request a little bit of leniency on the five minutes please. Amendment number two seeks to facilitate improved housing security choice diversity and affordability and establish a pathway for affordable housing. Unfortunately I don't believe the amendments can deliver on that promise as key provisions can't be implemented due to financial viability. Therefore if the housing outcomes can't viably be achieved I don't think this package is in the

02:01:00 public interest. I have three major concerns. Dual occupancy on 600 square meter blocks, dwelling houses being inconsistent on 500 square meter blocks and the bonus provisions for affordable housing. My first concern is the minister's condition that we're going to have to deal with. That dual occupancy be inconsistent on lots greater than 600 square meters. This was originally proposed in the version of amendments advertised for public consultation and resulted in strong opposition. Council officers responded as follows in December 2024. The scheme amendments were drafted nearly two years ago and were based on a 600 square meter site relatively free of constraints. However construction costs have increased exponentially since 2021. As have land costs. Also making dual occupancies inconsistent requires a minimum of three dwellings. This would now most likely not be feasible possibly rendering those sites undevelopable

02:02:00 individually. It's now recommended that dual occupancy be inconsistent on sites of 1000 square meters or more. How can the minister ignore community feedback and officer recommendations? What is the point of community consultation? They can't change the outcome. How can a minister condition a provision that staff determine can't now feasibly be implemented and where no other council has this rule? My second concern. If it is not financially viable to build three units on a 600 square meter block, is it viable to build two homes on a 500 square meter block? Restricting single dwelling houses on smaller blocks could mean that no development occurs. And older homes won't be replaced. Community feedback was clear on this issue also with over 50 submissions and a petition of 960 signatures. And that's just the people who knew about it. Noosa is known for its low density,

02:03:00 coastal laid back lifestyle, our fierce protection of our two and three story limits and resisting over development. Yet today we could be the first Queensland council to make a dwelling house inconsistent on blocks as small as 500 square meters in favour of units. How is that different by nature? Sunshine Coast Council's current planning scheme amendments propose a dwelling house is inconsistent in the medium density zone. Agreed. But their medium density zone is characterised by buildings of three to six storeys, which we don't allow in Noosa. They have also introduced a new zone called low to medium density, which is more akin to our medium density zone. Characterised with low rise buildings, mainly one to two storeys, up to three in some locations. Diversity of lot sizes, including small lots. Dwelling houses and dual occupancy are expected land uses in this zone.

02:04:00 Not inconsistent. Expected. Gold Coast, Logan and Ipswich all allow houses in their medium density zone. And we know they're very different. But they're not inconsistent. They're not inconsistent. from Noosa. Logan has had recent plan changes. Noosa Council sought changes in the planning regulation 2017 to make houses inconsistent in certain zones. And this came to fruition in December 22. But residents would not have been aware this process was happening. In these amendments, residents were not specifically notified because there was no rezoning, just a significant change to the land use allowed in the zone. I can't support Noosa being the pioneers of a provision that I consider unfair to residents. My third concern is the bonus provisions offered for development of affordable housing. In the amendments advertised last year, there were mandatory provisions around small dwellings and a proposed redefinition to 75 square metres. Feedback raised doubts whether these provisions were financially feasible or acceptable to the

02:05:00 market. And offices recommended retaining the current small dwelling definition at 100 square metres and making the small dwelling bonus provisions opt-in rather than mandatory. With the following justification. The circumstances around providing affordable rental accommodation are no longer as favourable as they were when amendments were drafted. Therefore, to ensure a supply of small dwellings continues where it's financially and physically viable, it's now recommended that the provision of small dwellings remain optional. Essentially, the path to affordable housing became less clear. The bonus allows a potential fourth storey where the residential component is entirely small dwellings and a minimum of 20 per cent of residential gross floor, which is affordable rental premises. As another year has now rolled by, I've raised doubts whether these proposed bonus conditions can be met in this market, particularly using the gross floor area as the denominator rather than the number of units, as the State does in the SFD process.

02:06:00 I believe this needs to be reviewed and tested before adopting such a provision. Otherwise, the goal of providing affordable housing in the Junctionless Civic can't be met under the scheme. If these provisions don't actually allow the intended housing supply outcomes to be achieved, I can't support adopting the package, even though I support most of the other amendments. If the only answer is to make further changes through a new process in the future, why adopt now if we know that it's going to need to change? Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. May the Councillor switch to speak. May the Councillor switch to speak. Councillor Lorentson: I will, and I think everyone already understands my position. I know that through the Planning and Environment Committee, and also during our first discussions when the draft first came to Council. I want to just talk a little bit about risk.

02:07:00 I understand the risk if Council doesn't adopt the amendment number two. We all know and respect the use of work, resources and consultation that's gone into this process. We understand there could be reputational impacts and even the possibility of State intervention. Those risks are real. But the bigger risk to me is what happens if we adopt the provisions. Amendment number two uses, in my opinion, a blunt instrument that strips away property rights. Reshapes Neighbourhood. And risks undermining community trust. That's a far greater cost than having to reset the process. At the heart of this is the rigid 600 square metre threshold in the medium density residential zone. On those lots, on lots under 600 square metres,

02:08:00 in those zones, dwelling houses can be built on lots less than 500 square metres. Where a dwelling house is allowed, a secondary dwelling may be included as part of a dwelling house. Geo occupancy can only be built on lots less than 600 square metres, and they can't be built on lots that are greater than 600 square metres. Only multiple dwellings can be built on lots 600 square metres or greater, meaning three or more, or more dwellings. So, to me, this approach wipes out choice. Families on smaller lots lose the ability to do what they want on their properties. And families on larger lots are pushed towards bulky, high density developments that change the character of entire streets.

02:09:00 In both cases, the flexibility and rights people value today is gone. The problem isn't the intent. The intent is good and we all support the intent. The problem, as I see it, is just the lack of flexibility. We already use incentives elsewhere in the planning scheme, like bonus floor space for smaller dwellings. That's a balanced approach because it encourages outcomes without removing choice. This amendment does the opposite. It forces everyone into one model, whether they want it or not. And it's important to note, as we heard around the table today, that this isn't being forced on us by state. Yet here we are volunteering to be the only council in Queensland to remove this right.

02:10:00 That is not necessary and it is not in the best interests of our community. Our residents have told us loud and clear they don't want this. They signed petitions. They made submissions and they spoke up at every opportunity. If we push ahead regardless, we don't just risk poor planning outcomes. We risk losing their trust. I support many elements of the amendment package, but this provision is too blunt, too restrictive and too costly for our community. I support many elements of the amendment package, but this provision is too blunt, too restrictive, and too costly for our community. But the risk of saying yes, the permanent loss of property rights, the loss of flexibility for families, and the erosion of neighbourhood character are far greater. My responsibility as a councillor is to protect those rights, not give them away. And for that reason, I cannot support the recommendation in front of us.

02:11:00 Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Robinson. All right. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendments? Pat Spicer: I'd like to speak. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Pat Spicer: What shall I say? Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, this is... I think the all-or-nothing approach has been a big challenge for all of us. It doesn't give us the opportunity to excise something out and look at that, and so the decision before us today is all-or-nothing. So I don't feel comfortable with that, but I'm sure I can only speak for myself. I think as leaders in our community that we are elected here to facilitate change,

02:12:00 to listen to our communities, and sometimes make difficult decisions about our future. We need to have confidence in our abilities to respond through adaptive leadership. And the challenge with it, and I think lays before us today, is finding that balance with judiciary requirements and listening to our community. We've heard around the table today some of the process around comms, how we've reached out. Yes, there's always room for improvement. Every time we have a decision before us, I look at the lens to go, how can we improve that? How can we make that better? In my opinion, that's not fixed. It's flexible, it's movable, it's changeable.

02:13:00 I, as a leader, wish to promote purpose-driven governance for the greater good. Around the table today, I'm also representing those people that don't have a voice. Those vulnerable people in our community, for whatever reason, are left without a home. They don't have the financial means nor capacity to have a shelter over our head. To represent those people that are living in their cars, living in our streets. A key takeaway for me as a leader is commitment to foster trust and empathy. To focus on asking the right questions and stretching for the greater good.

02:14:00 As a leader, that stretch for me personally comes to this table every time we have a major decision before us. They're not easy. Each of us around the table can contest to the challenges when we commit to leadership, commit to voice to our community, commit to change. It costs us. It costs us personally. It costs our community. And sometimes we don't always have the right answer to tick the box and go, it's easy, because it's not. We need to identify barriers for growth. As an organisation, as individuals. Develop new capabilities. And sometimes, sometimes there's not a roadmap for that. And that's where I believe we are here today. Yes, we can debate the technical issues, which we have. We can take into consideration what lies before us.

02:15:00 But for me as a leader, I'm called to advance the quality of life for all. Seek balance and resources to find a shift. Post COVID, we're sitting at an intersection of shift. Fundamentally here, across the globe, everywhere. As leaders, we are called to respond to that shift in a given place or time. I believe we stand here today. It is a time to take action. We've heard around the table the cost. The heart. What sits at the heart? How do we facilitate change? How do we find balance? And that is our role as leaders. We talk about it conscious folk. How do I sleep at night? I sleep at night because I have to make decisions based on the heart and take into consideration all the technical issues, the organisation and their expertise, the voice of my community and the impact for each individual

02:16:00 on the decisions we make today. This is not an easy decision before us. But my community voted me here to help create positive change, to elicit deeper thinking from those around the table, especially in an effort to challenge the status quo, alongside organisational capacity to also assist in identifying systems that resist forward action. We all know how challenging it is in all of our roles. Somewhere along the way, we've had to deal with a system that does not always give us what we ask for. I'd like to also talk about our beneficiaries, which does sit at the heart of my decision making.

02:17:00 Giving voice to our beneficiaries, and that is from the whole of the Shire, our entire community, to try and find balance and commitment to our community, to the greater good. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Pat Spicer: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Councillors, I've done it again. Councillor Phillips' amendment was seconded by Councillor Stockwell. Who seconded it? Who seconded the initial. So can we go back to Councillor Phillips' Speaker 3: I'd like to apologise. We were dealing with system issues. Mayor Wilkie: That's not your fault. That's my fault. That's my failing entirely. I'm happy to second. Councillor, thank you. And Councillor Lorentson will second that. So can we? Councillor Wilson: Can she? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, because we're talking about the motion moved by myself and Councillor Stockwell.

02:18:00 And this is an amendment. And this is Councillor Jess's amendment about delegated authority. Not the notice of motion. Councillor Finzel: Which means consistency. Consistency in the... Mayor Wilkie: Yes, I'm really sorry about that, Councillors. So can we put that to the vote again? Those in favour? Tom? Speaker 1: Aye. Mayor Wilkie: It's passed. Thank you. Now, the only councillor who's not spoken to the motion is Councillor Wignick. Councillor Wignick, do you wish to speak to the motion? Speaker 1: No, thank you. I spoke at the P&E. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. All right. I'll close. Thank you. Councilors, this is a pivotal decision and I appreciate that every councillor is voting according to their conscience. I would just encourage dissenting councillors to consider the breadth of this package of amendments.

02:19:00 I respect that the focus very much, for some of you, is on one aspect of it, which particularly pertains to changes affecting the medium density residential area zones and the rights of property owners there who may have houses there or wish to build houses there. Those rights are protected. They have existing rights. They won't say they have a house on site that's already 50% site cover. They want to make some changes. They can rebuild to the same size without too much of an effort. If they want to build substantially larger than that, there will not be a superseded planning scheme application. They have to make an application within 12 months. If they lodge the application by 11 months, they've got another six months grace there. Then they get a two-year application.

02:20:00 Unless the currency period may be extended, their rights aren't protected. There was an argument about why adopt if there are changes coming. My question is why reject a whole package when you can address the narrow focus of objection through a change later on. There are so many people depending on these changes. Principally, it follows through on our commitment to play our part in enabling truly affordable housing, greater supply of smaller dwellings, to further limit the spread of short-term accommodation businesses through our residential neighbourhoods, to enable positive changes at the Noosa District Sports Complex,

02:21:00 to limit the appearance of 8-metre-high sheds on residential boundaries in Tewantin. There was a lot of talk about trust. And if we don't approve these amendments, that's when trust in this Council. Not only in its promises, but also its capacity to deliver will be severely damaged. If not adopted, any strategic aim behind these amendments about the short-term monitoring report and our housing strategy will be lost. The capacity to build tiny homes on church and community land will be affected. Shall our business centre objectives? The State Government, as we heard, may view failure to adopt as a lack of commitment to regional plans or housing supply targets.

02:22:00 It could lead to increased State intervention or use of a ministerial direction to impose amendments relating to housing, such as increased densities or height limits. There is the risk of wasting the considerable investment of rate payout funded staff time, consultancy fees, community engagement resources over three years. They will have been wasted. We need to consider the impact a rejection of this work will have on staff wellbeing, commitment and effort over many years, confidence in this group of representatives. There may be reputational impacts that the community perceives at the process. And our commitment as a wasted effort and a waste of rate payer funds. Some of the amendments were about reducing red tape on dwelling houses. And the opportunities to streamline these processes will be lost. Non-adoption could generate backlash from those in the community and industry who supported the amendments or are waiting to act on the development of investment decisions.

02:23:00 Councilors, this package of amendments has been long awaited. It's broader than what we're proposing to do in the medium density residential zones where the changes, people affected by the changes do have existing use rights and their rights are protected by a process. There is, we are all humans. We're dealing in human systems. There is nothing that's perfect. Please don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or a narrow focus. A narrow focus makes us lose sight of the bigger objective that we're trying to achieve here. And it is difficult. And I respect the individual perspectives around the table. I ask those that are considering dissenting to consider supporting this package of amendments and then having the discussion later on through future planning scheme amendment processes to address any issues that they see as still at stake.

02:24:00 Thank you. Speaker 4: Put the motion to the vote. Mayor Wilkie: Those in favour. Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wilkie. The motion is carried. Councillors, we've been going for a few hours. We'll finish the Planning and Environment Committee recommendations. 11.1. Okay. Oh, those against. Sorry. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson. The motion is carried. Thank you. I need a coffee. We'll go to 11.1.3. Planning and Environment Committee recommendations on block. We have a mover and seconder for the Planning and Environment Committee recommendations to be adopted, except we're dealt with separately. I'm happy to move. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. I second. Seconder, Councillor Phillips.

11.1.3 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS EN BLOC ¶

▶ 02:24:50· Carried 7-0 from council's minutes

02:25:00 All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Aye. Councillors, we will have a 15-minute adjournment for a comfort break, and we'll be back. Speaker 2: Thanks.

11.2 SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 9 SEPTEMBER 2025 ¶

▶ 02:43:10

02:45:00 Mayor Wilkie: 11.2 Services and Organisation Committee recommendations. First one is 11.2.1 was the 2025 Annual Disaster Management Report. 11.2.2 the Noosa Botanic Gardens Master Plan. 11.2.3 is the Noosa Cultural Plan Adoption. 11.2.4 is a review of the Audit and Risk Committee Charter and Review of the Internal Audit Policy. 11.2.5 is the Services and Organisation Committee Recommendations. May I have a move or a second? I'll move. Whoa! And that was Councillor Churchill first. And Councillor Wilson behind by a window. Councillor Lorentson: All in favour? That's the adrenaline still going on. Mayor Wilkie: That's carried. Now we come to the General Committee Recommendations. The first was the Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority in July. 2025. 11.3.2 is the Financial Performance Report for August.

11.2.1 2025 Annual Disaster MANAGEMENT REPORT ¶

▶ 02:45:15

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

11.2.2 Noosa Botanic Gardens Master Plan ¶

▶ 02:45:26

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

11.2.3 Noosa Cultural Plan 2025-2030 Adoption ¶

▶ 02:45:31

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

11.2.4 REVIEW OF THE AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE CHARTER & REVIEW OF THE INTERNAL AUDIT POLICY ¶

▶ 02:45:34

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

11.2.5 SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ENBLOC ¶

▶ 02:45:40· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

02:46:00 11.3.3 the Proposed Amendment to the Support of Local Law Number 5 Parking. 2015 Public Consultation Outcomes. 11.3.4 Workplace Health and Safety Annual Report. 11.3.5 is the General Committee Recommendations on Block. May I have a mover and a seconder? I'll move. Councillor Wilson moves that and Councillor Phillips is the seconder. All in favour? That's carried. We have one report direct to the Ordinary Meeting which is the Tourism Noosa 12-month Funding Deed Agreement and Roadmap Status Report. We have Director of Strategy and Environment Kim Wallings here to give us a summary of this report. Thank you, Director Wallings. Director Rawlings: Thank you. Thank you. Through the Chair? Standing? Yes. Yes. Councillors. Councillors, this report is a report for noting in response to the decision that you made in May 2025 to authorise and therefore delegate to the CEO to prepare and execute a 12-month funding and performance deed with Tourism Noosa for the period of 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026.

11.3 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 15 SEPTEMBER 2025 ¶

▶ 02:46:07

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

11.3.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – JULY 2025 ¶

▶ 02:46:09

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

11.3.2 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – AUGUST 2025 ¶

▶ 02:46:12

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

11.3.3 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAW NO. 5 (PARKING) 2015 - PUBLIC CONSULTATION OUTCOMES ¶

▶ 02:46:15

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

11.3.4 Workplace healtH and safety Annual Report 2024/25 ¶

▶ 02:46:20

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

11.3.5 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS EN BLOC ¶

▶ 02:46:27· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

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

12 ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS ¶

▶ 02:46:46

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

12.1 TOURISM NOOSA 12 MONTH FUNDING DEED (AGREEMENT) & ROAD MAP STATUS REPORT ¶

▶ 02:46:48· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

02:47:00 The resolution also required the development of a roadmap. The roadmap with Tourism Noosa to outline future Council expectations and Tourism Noosa's role, structure and future focus, considering governance models, benchmarking and best practice data, as well as funding and organisational structures. So this report provides a status update of that roadmap, so both the funding agreement for noting and then a short status update on the roadmap. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Questions? Councillors? No. Councillor Stockwell? I'm happy to move the recommendation. Thank you. Moved, Councillor Stockwell.

02:48:00 And a seconder, please. Second. Seconder, Councillor Phillips. Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. So this is the forming and agreeing to the funding for this financial year. It was something we delegated to the staff. I know there was negotiations and a number of meetings to get to a document that both parties were happy with, and so I thank the staff for that. The key issue for going forward is that finalisation of the roadmap, and the feedback we get and our decisions on the DMP is running side by side with that roadmap process, so that we get a feeling from the community about the future direction and therefore what may be the future. So that's the way forward for tourism marketing and destination marketing in Noosaville. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Can the councillor speak? Councillor Wilson? Councillor Wilson: Noting that this report is for noting and fulfils the resolution in May 2025 to authorise

02:49:00 the CEO to prepare a funding agreement, and this has just been recently executed in September. I raised a few concerns about the details in the deed and whether some of the priorities and KPIs are clear and measurable as written. I did seek clarification from the director, which satisfied my questions. So there's more detail than was actually being presented in the deed. But I just wanted to raise a couple of inconsistencies in our strategic direction. This deed briefly mentions sustainable and regenerative tourism and taking direction from the TEA. I'm not sure if you can see the DMP, where there was much more focus there, but that is still in progress, so not a council position as yet. The key purpose of Tourism Noosa is to maintain Noosa's brand, and the main marketing activity referred to is to develop an annual destination marketing plan to attract high-value travellers from intrastate, interstate and international markets, which are all reliant on air travel

02:50:00 to get here. It just doesn't quite sit right with me when we talk about our goals for net zero emissions, sustainable and regenerative tourism, and at the same time having such a focus on air travel. Especially this week, when ZENINC is asking residents to pledge to make one less local car trip, walk to a local restaurant instead of driving a few kilometres, and that's a project council supported with a grant. Meanwhile, we have no way to really manage the daytrippers driving at, say, a hundred kilometres to get here, and we're asking TN to target high-value, low-volume consumers that travel here by plane. In the DMP, we're moving away from terms like high-value, which is based on the dollar spend, and replacing with more values aligned. So I just want us to consider, as we progress with the roadmap, that we really need to be consistent with the brand messaging, strategic direction, and our agreements that we have

02:51:00 with different partner organisations. If we expect to change behaviour, we just really need everyone to be clear what it is that we're trying to achieve, and have all of our documents reflecting that. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Any other councillors wish to speak? Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morris. I don't want to speak. Just a quick question. In terms of the roadmap, and I know that it was answered through questions that were asked by Councillor Phillips, can I ask, in terms of the roadmaps, will we be considering engaging an independent facilitator or consultant to lead the roadmap process to ensure neutrality in transparency? Director Rawlings: The roadmap process is underway, and the report outlines the members of that group that are working through the roadmap collaboratively, which include our Council CEO, myself, the

02:52:00 Chair of Tourism Noosa. A board member of Tourism Noosa, and the Tourism Noosa CEO. We have appointed a project manager, a senior and experienced project manager, and part of their brief is to bring a level of neutrality and independence. We also have mapped out in the process, and we have at a point, the option to get the roadmap peer reviewed by independent experts, both in terms of governance or in terms of the tourism industry, or in destination management, or in, you know, whatever we may need to get to at the time. So we have got that option, if required. Councillor Lorentson: One last question. In terms of the roadmap, the KPI only requires completion of the roadmap by November 2025. Should we be also including a recommendation that the roadmap needs to be completed by

02:53:00 the end of the year? Or is that expected? Director Rawlings: Yeah, I think that's implied. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Director Rawlings: Yeah. Great. Thank you. And it is that the roadmap is completed and endorsed. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel. Just to clarify that, I can't find it in my notes, but there was something that came before us that didn't have to be, like... Mm-hmm. Yeah. Sorry, I'm sorry. Endorsed? Scattered. Yes. So I forget which item that was. I just can't find it in my notes at the moment. That there was a mutual understanding that they felt it was far enough along that it would proceed forward. Can you tell us a bit about that? Because personally, I really want to see KPIs, given that through the campaign community made it loud and clear that, you know, about this money and for transparency and good governance.

02:54:00 You know, our aim for the roadmap, in my opinion, is a way of providing that. So I am a little bit concerned about the wording. For sure. Yeah. So I'm asking in seeking clarification, Mr Chair, from the staff to please clarify. Director Rawlings: Councillor Finzel, I think I know the clause you're talking about. Yes. And it was in response to Councillor Wilson's series of questions. I've got this one. Yeah. I've got it. Yeah. So it relates to clause 2.10. Yes. In the funding agreement, which is attached to your report. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Yeah. Director Rawlings: And that clause talks about that in the event the roadmap is mutually agreed by parties, so the collaborative team, working team, but not yet endorsed by the Council by the 31st of December. So there's two steps in the process. We have to agree as a group and then recommend it to Council and then Council need to endorse it. But in the event that that doesn't happen by the 31st of December, this clause relates to the second payment, the second funding payment. Now if in the scenario that the roadmap's reported to Council and Council say, we would

02:55:00 like some further information, we would like some further benchmarking, we would like some further peer review, therefore the completion of the roadmap's going to take a little bit more time. The funding agreement allows. It allows for Council still to make the second payment to Tourism Noosa to allow that organisation to continue to function. So that clause specifically relates to the second payment of funding and provides a little bit of flexibility around if in this scenario that Council doesn't endorse it at the first meeting, there's still discretion for the second payment to be made to enable Tourism Noosa to continue to operate. Councillor Finzel: So then I guess my question is, is how do we mitigate risk moving forward, because from my opinion, I feel the intent of the roadmap was to have an alignment so that we're not

02:56:00 in a position where we're talking about ratifying funds when the roadmap and the KPIs and all that. I thought the intent, from my opinion, was about that alignment. I think this is a risk and how do we mitigate risk moving forward. Director Rawlings: That's absolutely the intention, but the risk is, and this is trying to provide some flexibility, that if you, if the Council, and there's been circumstances where the Council have said, no, we can't make this decision, we need more information, so it's just to mitigate that risk, but the intention is, my hope is, plan A is that we meet that timeframe and the roadmap's endorsed and both organisations are brought along the journey and that endorsement happens. We will be having workshops with Councillors as we get closer to having draft roadmap.

02:57:00 And as you know, there's, you know, the Council is also talking to the Tourism Noosa board, so there are a raft of ongoing conversations and processes happening alongside this to make sure everyone's on the journey. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, you wish to close? No, thank you. We'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That is unanimous. Except we don't have time. Time's up. Time's up. Thank you. Item 13 is there was no confidential session. That is unanimous. I'm forwarding to the next ordinary meeting will be at Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin, at 10am on the 16th of October 2025. And I declare the meeting closed at 12.58pm. And thank you, Councillors, for your attendance and your contributions today and your discipline.

13 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION ¶

▶ 02:58:00

02:58:00 And thank you to our friends in the gallery. Thank you.

14 NEXT MEETING ¶

▶ 02:58:03

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.

15 MEETING CLOSURE ¶

▶ 03:00:40

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.