Planning & Environment Committee Meeting - 10 February 2026 Transcript

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING ¶

▶ 00:00:09

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

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶

▶ 00:00:14

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

3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶

▶ 00:00:51

00:01:00 Director King Rawlings on line. So everyone's in attendance. Can I please request before commencing the meeting that everyone have their phones on silent or turned off and we'll start with confirmation of minutes. Can I please have a mover and a seconder. Thank you Mayor Wilkie. Thank you Tom. Seconding. No discussion. All in favour? Thank you. Presentations, deputations. There are none. So we move to reports for consideration of the committee. 7.1, commercial use of community land policy, amendments and upcoming tender process. And welcome to the desk. We've got Richard MacGillivray and Dennis. So I'll ask Dennis. Oh, excuse me. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a conflict so I'm going to firstly ask through the CEO if we can appoint another chair while I just get my conflict out for the committee to decide.

4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶

▶ 00:01:05

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

4.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DATED 9 DECEMBER 2025 ¶

▶ 00:01:19

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

5 PRESENTATIONS ¶

▶ 00:01:38

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

6 DEPUTATIONS ¶

▶ 00:01:42

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

7 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE ¶

▶ 00:01:47

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

7.1 Commercial Use of Community Land Policy Amendments and Upcoming Tender Process ¶

▶ 00:01:57

00:02:00 Speaker 1: Yeah, sure, I can take that on while youTer kennie. So what is the conflict? Councillor Lorentson: Well, she's going to appoint a chair first before you can deal with it. Speaker 1: Oh, OK. But appointing a new chair roll homes to theção. Acting Chair would be, we would automatically go to the Mayor, so, in this one we can. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move that Council will be active. Thank you. Seconded. All in favour? All in favour. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. And Councillor Lorentson, you have a conflict that you'd like to declare. Councillor Lorentson: Yes, I'm just going to get some wording.

00:03:00 In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I am for the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest for item 7.1, Commercial Use of Communities, Land Policy Amendments and Upcoming Tender Process on this agenda, as I take weekly serving lessons with Josh Constable, who is an applicant in the upcoming High Use Tender Process. And as my children have previously worked over 16 to 18 months ago for Dean Brady, who is an applicant in the upcoming Commercial High Use Tender Process. And my children are also members of the Noosa Board Writers Association Club, where they are coached by Dean. Dean Brady, also an applicant in the tender.

00:04:00 I don't believe I have a conflict. I think what's in front of us, the report in front of us, is simply minor changes to the policy. And it doesn't actually reference or mention the tender applicants. So I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Mayor Wilkie: Look, I'll move that Councillor Lorentson can remain in the meeting room because the policy we're discussing is not a final decision on the allocation of permits, high use commercial permits. But certainly if it was, then leaving the room would be more appropriate. So I move that Councillor Lorentson remain in the meeting room.

00:05:00 Do you have a second? I second. Speaker 1: Councillor Wigden? Anyone else wish to speak? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do. There is actually a principle. And the principle is just by being the customer of the business does not create any conflict. Otherwise we could never rule on the DA for wars. So it's important and it probably will be another consideration when the permits come up. But under the Act, there is no conflict in just being a customer of a business. Councillor Lorentson: I respect that. And I just in light of OIA judgement some time ago, in the spirit of exercising abundance of caution, I would like to declare it. Mayor Wilkie: There's certainly no harm in declaring it. Absolutely. But I respect what Councillor Stockwell said. Any further discussion on the motion of Councillor Lorentson

00:06:00 being able to remain in the room? I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. And Councillor Lorentson cannot vote. And Councillor Lorentson is now back as Chair. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. So back to Dennis. If you can give us an overview of the report in front of us and the amended commercial use of community land policy, what changes actually were. Speaker 8: Good morning, Councillors. Yes, this report is seeking minor amendments to the commercial use of community land policy ahead of our upcoming tender process for commercial high-use permits, which are based around the Noosam main beach precinct. So those permits are set to expire at the end of June and we run a tender process in the lead up to that. So we've had some discussions with Councillors via a briefing

00:07:00 and workshop in the lead up to this report, just looking at the policy and the list of activities that it supports on the Noosam main beach and surrounds. And as a result of those discussions, we're looking at two amendments that we're seeking to the list of activities that are listed under the policy. The changes are discontinuation of kite surfing lessons at Noosaspit, which is a permit that's currently sitting vacant without an operator for the last couple of years. And also discontinuation of beach massage on Noosam main beach. That is a permit which has a current commercial permit holder and operator. And that's also recommended for discontinuation. So it would drop off the list of supported activities under the policy. Another minor amendment to the policy is just acknowledging the recent DMP adoption

00:08:00 and sort of tipping the hat, as it were, to the new DMP and its relationship to commercial activities on Noosam main beach. As I said, all commercial high-use permits are set to expire on 30th of June this year. So if the amendments are supported and the amended policy adopted, staff will then proceed to attend the process straight away based on that list of commercial activities. And a further report to Council is expected probably in the May round with the outcomes of that tick. So that's the tender process. We're looking to award tenders before the expiry in June. Councillor Lorentson: Questions around the table. Mayor Wilkie: Yes, could you... You mentioned kitesurfing and the massage. The report also speaks about the snacks and drink refreshment van. Could you tell us about the changes there, please?

00:09:00 Speaker 8: Yes. Yeah. So the refreshment van at Noosa Spit has sat vacant for about 18 months. The operator there walked away from its permit. It was struggling to make a go of that business at the Spit car park. And they cited a lot of the travellers, van lifers, sort of dominating that car park and a drop in trade. So we did have discussions about whether perhaps we might discontinue that permit as well. But the recommendation is that it remains. And there's quite a lot of latent interest in refreshment vans and coffee vans in the community. So there's a number on the list that we compiled to contact directly. And we'll give someone else an opportunity to hold that permit and try and make a go of it. Obviously at the Spit, over time, we may have changes to parking regimes and things.

00:10:00 The other thing that's changed since the operator left is that the dog beach has reopened. So the sort of patterns of use in that area are changing and have changed. So the recommendation is that it remain an activity that we support through this tender. And we'll see if someone would like to give it another go. Mayor Wilkie: And is the thinking that with the dog beach being restored, there'd be potential for more patronage? Speaker 8: Yes. Yeah. The dog beach is getting a lot of use. So people park down in that pocket car park near the dog beach, but also... Access the level. ..further around the area. And it's not far to walk to that Spit location. So potentially, you know, with the right marketing and offering, that could be a good little business. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: And the thinking with the beach massage is that it's a service that's readily available

00:11:00 anywhere else in the Shire. And the beach location is not essential for it to... It's not offering a service that you can't get anywhere else. Speaker 8: Yeah, it's that level of need to be actually on the beach. So it actually creates quite a lot of challenges for the business being on the beach with weather and set up and breakdown. Yeah. And, yeah, since writing the report, I've had a look, you know, around Australia, and as best I can tell, it's the last beach massage operation in Australia. And, you know, that could be a reason to decide to keep at it. But I think it points to the level of need to be actually on a beach as opposed to in a premises. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: It's been years since we've seen many kayak surfers that have ridden out. They all seem to be on a lake wider. Yes. Are there any other reasons why they're migrating there for lessons and... Speaker 8: Yeah, it's just a more stable environment.

00:12:00 I think when the permit was first sought at the river mouth, you know, we sort of had a lagoon and large spits of sand there at times. So for fleeting periods, there was good conditions for kite surfing. But generally speaking, it's a specialist area. It's not a, you know, a learner's area. Because the conditions there with the channel and the wind and currents and other uses is very challenging. Mayor Wilkie: And the depth of the lake, the shallow depth of the lake, make it more user-friendly for learners, I guess. Speaker 8: Yeah. We actually don't have a learner surf, kite surfing school that's interested in spit locations. Yeah. So, yeah, it's not something that's, you know, is coming across anyone's business operations. OK. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: So, in terms of kite surfing, so you sort of answered my question,

00:13:00 so I keep thinking, do we need to remove it entirely or should we re-tender or review on understanding demos from what you just said that you've done that and reached out to operators, kite surfers, just trying to understand who have you consulted? Speaker 8: We have other permits that we all... that we support. Yeah. In other locations. So, Open Beach is lake-wide to the extent that it's within Noosa Council and I believe also at Boring Point from time to time. So, those are low-use locations as opposed to being around the main beach precinct. Councillor Lorentson: My question is, and I'm looking at... So, we're pulling out two permits. Has Council considered replacing one of these permits with another? Yeah. So, is this a beginner or lanchy surf-style activity, given the popularity in surfing? Speaker 8: No, we haven't.

00:14:00 I guess with the introduction of the DMP, there's a bit of a reluctance to be making a jump to adding commercial pressures on the beach. Historically, I think, when Noosa Council reformed, there was four surf schools on the beach and there was some conflict going on with, sort of, turf wars, as it were. And so, one of those permits was discontinued, going back some time. So, there is a bit of history around that and, sort of, at the moment, we feel that it's a relatively good balance between, you know, commercial activity and passive recreation at the moment. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of the destination management plan, just for clarity, and I'm going to the report itself, and it states, Council's destination management plan and any associated plans and strategies will guide the management of commercial activities under this policy.

00:15:00 Just for clarity, does the DMP actually have decision-making authority or it's just advising this policy? I'm just trying to understand, in hierarchy, this is a policy and we've got a destination management plan with a policy with no real clear frameworks or parameters. Yeah. We haven't developed our event strategy. So, how does one inform the other? Yeah. Which one overrides which? Speaker 8: I think you're right in that there's no pointed action plan around commercial high-use permits and we did note that through the consultation with the DMP that there wasn't any negative feedback around these commercial high-use permits, which is a good thing. But it was more just that interrelationship between commercial use of Noosan Main Beach and the DMP's role that it was really just saying within the policy that we've adopted that plan

00:16:00 and that as time goes on, it will be a lens that we're looking at commercial activity through. Speaker 4: I think that answers your question. Yeah. And I think, Councilor Meagher, it also, and then through the policy in terms of review of the permits and conditions, looking at the regenerative tourism, so in terms of those providers and those users sort of giving back as well and other initiatives that the businesses can partake in that contribute to regenerative tourism and, you know, build up on that because that is being sought through the development destination management plan. So, that's the focus of the linkage between the two. Councillor Lorentson: So, the criteria in the wavings, looking at the tender process, that will be made clear to the applicants so they understand what regenerative actually means. Absolutely, yeah. Speaker 8: So, yeah, I'm adding a section to the tender package which is focused on the DMP.

00:17:00 So, just it's called their alignment and initiatives alignment to the DMP. So, really getting them to dive into the DMP and asking them how they'll respond to that, to what it's trying to promote. Councillor Lorentson: A question about the two permit cap. How does a two permit cap operate in practice to prevent market concentration and why a two permit cap is given the popularity of these permits? Is it more equitable just to allow one per applicant? Just trying to get my head around why the permit limit was set at two per holder. Speaker 8: Yeah, that's something that's

00:18:00 has come through in the policy as it dates back to when it was originally drafted in 2014. So, it's a legacy of the policy. I guess the idea in having the cap is that there are some relatively large businesses in the sort of surf schools and beach hire space that might look to dominate all our permits if they're given the opportunity. We have had a number of operators hold two permits through the time that I've been in the property team, being surf schools and on the beach hire or kayak tours. A decision about only allowing one would really cut across that. Yeah, I guess it would be a decision of council if they thought there was strong grounds to do that. Councillor Lorentson: So, that probably leads to my next question

00:19:00 in terms of a round table. Has council ever convened a round table with operators and people interested in this space to sort of understand, you know, just to capture their feedback on high-use tenders, whether the two per cap is relevant or appropriate or not? Speaker 8: We haven't convened a round table, but, you know, we're interacting with potential permit applicants and the permittees on a weekly basis. So, there's a lot of that that goes on in the five years between the tender process, but, yeah, not a round table as such. Speaker 4: And, obviously, with the potential commercial aspect to that, yeah, it's probably not appropriate bringing them in a round table setting, given they've got different offerings and different requirements and there is a competitive... tender process.

00:20:00 Councillor Lorentson: So, as Dennis alluded to... Maybe a questionnaire or survey. Speaker 4: Yeah, there is a lot of active dialogue with all of the permit holders and there's audits and there's a lot of engagement and there's also interested parties that have made enquiries. So, the team hold a register of all of those parties over the five-year period. So, any interest in the public and also if there are complaints or issues about operators, the team get all that information and then they're able to assist when they do this review process to make sure that there's been a lot of feedback garnered and then that helps with the renewal process in terms of other issues that have been coming up regularly from the community about operators or feedback from some of the operators themselves around the permits or conditions and renewal restrictions and the like. So, it's well considered, I guess, but it's been more of an individual basis than most permit holders. Councillor Lorentson: A destination management plan, I'd like to call that like a resident first document. In terms of the current policy,

00:21:00 does it give any preference to local operators and should it? And should it also explicitly... Explicitly articulate that we need to support local employment and community benefit or is that something that's part of the tender process in terms of the criteria waiting? Speaker 8: I would think that's a question for the director that's responsible for the DMP rather than... Speaker 1: I think it's out of the scope of what... To some degree. I think it's... What we're talking about here, Councillor, is more the principle of using the DMP. The DMP, as you know, is still... It's an iterative process in terms of the DMP and how it works. I take your... I understand your question and maybe it is a question we can take offline with the director to understand how it fits with... The DMP fits with this and whether it does guide our... When we go to tender,

00:22:00 there are certainly criteria within the tender in terms of... What's the term? A local... Local economy is a standard provision. Local economy. So that all comes into that and then again, there's the DMP being an advisory, so I think we're just looking to land into the mix and we're fairly new in this space with the new DMP, so... Kim does have a... Madam Chair, the director's online. Sorry, I didn't realise she was online. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Kim. I'll throw it to you. Speaker 7: Yeah, thank you for the question. I'm happy to provide further information, but I think it's a very good analysis of the DMP. It is absolutely a community-first document and when this policy refers to key strategic documents, they... I think it's a very good analysis of the DMP.

00:23:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you Kim, and my last suggestion is, and I think I raised this last time, but I would love to see it as part of the guiding principles and actually inserted under roles and responsibilities. The World Surfing Reserve, which I've been sitting on for the last six years, has developed a code of conduct which promotes environmental stewardship, safe practices, respect for community, and etiquette. I would love that actually embedded in the policy.

00:24:00 Last time I raised it I think we put it as a noting. So can I take that offline and maybe an amendment to the policy to include that permit holders must comply with the World Surfing Reserve code of conduct, and also commercial activities must consider accessibility and inclusivity, again their core principle of the destination management plan, ensuring participation and enjoyment for people of all ages. Can you tell us what that means? Can I take that offline and maybe work with you, Dennis or Richard, in terms of whether we can... Speaker 8: I can talk to that point. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, yes, please. Speaker 8: Yeah, so we're proposing amendments to the policy now ahead of the tender, so this is the forum that we're talking about, the policy. I wouldn't recommend embedding World Surfing Reserve within the policy, but the DMP does reference it,

00:25:00 and the tender process is specifically getting tenderers to provide or submit as to how they align with the DMP and what their initiatives are. So I'm not leading the witness in the tender process to spoon-feed them that, but I'm looking for their submissions, and then once we do the permits, I'm happy to have conditions for the surf schools and surf hire within those permits to specifically reference the Code of Conduct and to have conditions in those permits, which I think is appropriate. Councillor Lorentson: And that's the current way because the DMP catches so much more than just the important, for me, accessibility, inclusivity, and the Code. I like that approach. Thank you. Speaker 4: And you're not duplicating the policy in the DMP? You're doing a separate policy? Speaker 8: Tom, just a due process question, has the Misalish people, have they been notified?

00:26:00 Yes, we've met with the operator, so we're now in talks as to how they evolved, so whether there might be opportunity for them to have a low use permit in another location or they'll start to look at premises, but yeah, we've had that discussion. Councillor Lorentson: I do have a couple more questions if anyone else, in terms of new or emerging local businesses, this is a question that I keep asking I think every five years, how do they get a foot in the door and has council considered interim or pilot permits that we can use to trial new concepts in between tender rounds? I keep going, how do we do it? And to me the solution is an interim or pilot permit, is that something that has been discussed?

00:27:00 Speaker 8: Well, we have quite a lot of permits in that space, they're just not on the highest activity area, so we have, off the top of my head, five or six other surf schools that we support on the open beaches, so obviously that's a different offering. But yeah, on May Beach West, which is like a small wave most of the time and a land surf area, we only support the two schools and the surf dancing, and that is about service delivery, so the policy comes to a position of supporting that activity in that location and we go out to tender for businesses that deliver that service. So there hasn't been talk about pilot programs or other types of permits in high use locations.

00:28:00 The way we support other surf schools is in our locations. Speaker 4: And there is the situation there, Dennis, where, for example, I know with the refreshment from the set there, we're exploring if there's other groups potentially that may seek to take up the void there for, I don't know, five or six years. There's exploring in terms of there might be another party that might be interested in utilising that space rather than waiting with a dormant operator. But I guess it comes down to sort of the specific nature of those, the gap and the reason for that discontinuing as well. So it needs its own, I guess, look at that as well. Councillor Lorentson: No further questions around the table. I'm happy to... I'm happy to move the application. Can I... The report. Can I have a second, Councillor? Second. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. No further discussion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think the broadness of the questions has raised a lot of issues.

00:29:00 I think the guiding principles really are the key to ensuring that the guiding values of the DMP are enshrined within this policy. And the first one's really clear. The community's use and need for land takes precedence over commercial operators' need. And so we see this gradual amendment to this policy to really take into consideration the high demand that's placed on Noosa Main Beach and Noosa Main Beach West and just bring it back a little bit. And I think that's really important that we continue to do that. The greater the demand, the greater the need. The more we should be ensuring that the maximum use for our locals is there. And the other aspect is we did have a range of questions around the Destination Management

00:30:00 Plan. The new guiding principle is really clear. The Council's Destination Management Plan and any associated plans and strategies will guide the management of commercial activities under this policy. So all those issues that are championed within the DMP will be the guiding principles of and objectives when we come around to implementing this policy. So I think it's a good, just a small step then, but it's how we should be looking at arranging policies. Every time there's a need to review it, does it currently align with the policy direction prior to DMP? Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. The policy reflects the intent since 2014 to minimise the number of commercial high use permits allocated to the main beach recreation area. And you've noted in the report that the proposed reduction in commercial high use activities supported under the policy aligns with the DMP's intent to improve accessibility and

00:31:00 passive recreation space. And it acknowledges the decline in the need for the kite surfing at the river mouth. And also, yeah, it's not necessary that there be the commercial activity of the beach massage on the beach. Because there's premises elsewhere and low use permits can be issued elsewhere. I think it's a very good policy. And it's right that it's been brought to us before the issuing of the commercial high use permits tender process. Because they expire on the 30th of June. So it's good to have this policy in place before we execute this tender process. Councillor Lorentson: Any further discussion? No. Thank you. I'd like to put it to a vote. All those in favour? Right. Thank you, Richard. And thank you, Dennis, for the result. Thank you.

00:32:00 That brings us to the next item. A report for consideration, which is 7.2. MCU 18-01-02.03. Application for other changes in development approval for commercial high use activities. I'd like to introduce Mr Patrick Bounce Hostel, Food and Drink Outlet at 14 to 16 Mary Street, Noosaville. And welcome to the desk, Patrick. And I'd like to know if you can give us an overview of the report in front of us. Speaker 9: Thank you. Good morning, councillors. This is an application to add a food and drink outlet to the existing Bounce Hostel in Mary Street. It was in 2008. Like 2018, that the hostel was approved. By the time it had been completed, it was when COVID was occurring.

7.2 MCU18/0102.03 - APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR BOUNCE HOSTEL, FOOD & DRINK OUTLET AT 14-16 MARY ST, NOOSAVILLE ¶

▶ 00:32:13

00:33:00 And around that time, the acting manager of development assessment permitted the use of the existing... I should go back. There was a... Within the hostel itself, there was a cafe area that was approved. Four guests of the hostel to use. There was a condition that was included to advise that the cafe wasn't to be used by the public. And so in December of 2021, not long after the hostel was completed, the acting manager consented to a temporary approval, a temporary use permit to allow that cafe to be used by the non... By non-guests. A food and drink outlet is an inconsistent use on this site. It's within the Mary Street Health and Wellbeing Precinct. There's an intention of the scheme to have a transition of land uses between Mary Street

00:34:00 and the residential dwellings behind the hostel to ensure that there's no amenity impacts. The design of this building is such that it's designed to ensure that there's no amenity impacts. It encases the site with the food and drink outlet being located sort of within the perimeter of the building towards the front of the site. And the design of the building was designed to ensure that there was limited amenity impacts Speaker 4: on the surrounding residents. Speaker 9: Through the operation of the temporary use permit until June 2023, there were no complaints associated with the use of the food and drink outlet. And there was also a letter from an adjuster that said that the food and drink outlet was not supporting the use at that time. In January of 2024, there was an application to use the food and drink outlet by the public,

00:35:00 put to Council. There's another change. That was notified, no submissions, and that was supported by Council. There was a condition allowing that use to occur for 12 months, again, to ensure that there was no amenity impacts. There was no complaints received during those 12 months. Unfortunately, the applicant forgot to seek an extension of that use. And therefore, that use lapsed and they've had to come back now to seek its approval again. Again, publicly notified with no submissions. We've had no complaints about the operation of the food and drink outlet throughout its time. And again, seek to allow the use to occur on the site with no lapse period. So, to allow that food and drink outlet to occur on the site with no lapse period. And again, to allow that food and drink outlet to continue on an ongoing basis. So, it's recommended for approval. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Questions around the table. Tom. Councillor Wegener: Is there a place for the people that are staying there to make their own food?

00:36:00 Is there a kitchen for that? Speaker 9: There is. Councillor Wegener: And that's not going to be impacted by this at all? Speaker 9: That's correct. They'll still have their exclusive area which they can prepare their own meals. There is also a cafe on site which they can use around a pool deck. But that area will also be able to accommodate members of the public. Councillor Wegener: The restaurants aren't moving into the other area? Speaker 9: No. They're maintaining the existing cafe area. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Madam Chair. The patrons tend to be the hostel occupants for the food and drink? Speaker 9: Well, it was... Mayor Wilkie: Predominantly the occupants? Speaker 9: It was exclusively set up for the occupants of the hostel to utilise. In the consideration of the previous other change, it was acknowledged that they would continue to use the cafe and approximately 80 square metres of the 190 square metres allocated for the food and drink outlet would be used by the non-paying... Sorry, non-guests.

00:37:00 Yes. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: And is there any indication of how popular it has been with the general public? Like number of patrons who aren't guests? Speaker 9: No. I could not tell you. That's all right. Mayor Wilkie: But there have been no complaints? Speaker 9: There's been no complaints. Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the recommendation. Councillor Lorentson: Excuse me, Justice Chair. There's still further questions. No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've moved it. Is there a second? I'll second it. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Questions can come at any time. This is a really good news story. This is a business that was constructed to a design that not only reflected the Moosa design principles. It created a standard for the business. I'm going to take this opportunity to talk about this use and why it came to be here

00:38:00 in the Lytol. Quite often, Noosa Council is criticised about standing up for its planning scheme and for having high standards. In fact, this is a great case of how Noosa Council supporting a local business has gone on to create the leading hostel chain in Oceania. This site has a great design. Council's actually went over and above the staff to allow a pitched roof that goes above the height limit. It had a opening right in the middle of the COVID lockdowns and numerous conversations with the director. It was tea drink with the investors, as you can imagine, at the time the construction was finished. This council put a short-term COVID allowance to allow this cafeteria and restaurant to be used by the locals, who were the only real resource during the lockdown, which was enough

00:39:00 just to get that early stage going. The business owner also took advantage of the COVID relaxations to provide emergency accommodation for hospitality staff, because it's very hard to find accommodation for our hospitality businesses. It's one where we subsequently put high conditions on this, designed to ensure that the neighbouring properties weren't affected when we found out after years of operation that that noise problem that was a concern to the submitters did not exist, but the way it was designed has achieved the outcome. So it is a great example of how a little bit of flexibility, but with the overall intent to really focus on creating high-quality products. We look at the DMP. Some of the criticism of the DMP, we're just trying to make news to the rich people.

00:40:00 What we want is high-quality products at each price point. This, it's for hostel sales. We want it at the camping ground stage, and we want it at the high end of the hotels change. But it's a good news story. I think the fact that we have now got lots of years of experience to show that just by providing a little bit more opportunity for people to use the premises of the restaurant, it's not going to affect the neighbours, and it is part of what has become a, this site in itself has won numerous awards throughout Oceania. And I reflect one of my own experiences in the middle of a national park in the middle of New Zealand. A great big family group out on, going on a two-day trail ride, and the young people had just come back from 18 months of travelling around the world, and they, when I told them where I was from, they said the Bounce Hostel is the best in the world we've been to. So it's really good feedback, and it is good about what makes Noosa different by nature.

00:41:00 Councillor Lorentson: I'll just, just would like to... recognise Mark Baldwin, who's the director of the Bounce, he sent us all an email. And Bounce was named the best hostel chain in Oceania at the 2026 Hostel World Awards. And, and for most of us, we don't know what that means, but it is the most prestigious accolades in the global backpacker and budget travel industry. So I'll just take this opportunity to... acknowledge and thank Mark Baldwin. These are the sort of businesses that we really... encourage in, in Noosa. Best practices, and with good people, and supporting our local economy. So no further question. I'd like to put it to the vote. All in favour? Thank you.

00:42:00 Thank you. And next we'll move to... Thank you. The reports for consideration 7.3, NCU 250118, application for material change of use for multiple dwelling, affordable rental premises, 25 small dwellings at 64 Lake MacDonald Drive. I will note early that this report will be moved to the general meeting, which is a significant set of matter. We'll take the opportunity to get an overview of the report and we'll just ask some questions but we'll hold the debate till general meeting. Thank you. Speaker 6: Good morning councillors. So the application in front of us is for a material change of use for the purpose of a multiple dwelling development consisting of an affordable rental premises which has taken the form of 25 small dwellings.

7.3 MCU25/0118 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR MULITIPLE DWELLING - AFFORDABLE RENTAL PREMISES (25 x SMALL DWELLINGS) AT 64 LAKE MACDONALD DRIVE, COOROY ¶

▶ 00:42:14

00:43:00 So I understand we're relatively familiar with the site, noting that it is part of a larger council project. I have prepared a couple plans for today that I believe Sally might be trying to bring up if possible. Just so we can talk to I suppose a couple of the key areas of variation and just a bit more context to the site. So as we can see up on the screen. The development that is forming part of this application is proposed to occupy lot one, which was approved about mid last year. A subdivision consisting of one into six lots, which included the approval of a drainage and a parked lot. So for clarity, I condition a part of this approval, recommended approval package includes that no works are to commence until the title of future lot one has been created.

00:44:00 So that essentially means that should this be approved, the titles to be created, so the road will be constructed, landscaping will be established, as well as the bioretention basin will be constructed and finalised. Of note, the development does consist of an affordable rental premises. So this is a new definition that has been introduced with the latest scheme amendment, which it essentially just means that the land is, is secured as affordable housing and for the life of the development is sorry, has been secured as affordable housing and will be managed by a registered housing provider for the life of the development. The proposed development type is consistent with the community facility zone of the property and was required to follow an impact consistent application pathway,

00:45:00 which did involve public notification for a period of 15 business days. And over that period, 53 submissions were received. You'll note as contained within the report, there's a table at the end of the document that has summarised all of the submissions and it's got officer commentary against each outcome. In terms of the compatibility of the development with the scheme, as contained within the report, you'll see that there are a couple of minor variations to the acceptable outcomes of the scheme. And this includes height, car parking, setbacks, private open space and roof form. So sorry, Sal, could we go to the next photo? Thank you. So in terms of the variation to height, we're compliant with the eight metres from natural ground level, and that is a condition to, is a recommended condition as well.

00:46:00 However, the development does consist of three storeys. This is as a result of that low level car parking area. So it's essentially because it's not backfield, it's not below ground. And the site, it's quite a difficult site to build on. It's quite steep, so it wasn't going to be achievable in this instance. But in terms of what this means, like what external impacts there will be, it'll be that elevation that is being highlighted, and that is the three storey element that will be visible external to the site. Mayor Wilkie: Just in that location, not in the whole development. Speaker 9: That's correct. The remainder of the perimeter of the site will appear as two storeys. Speaker 6: So this render is taken from the future internal road that will be constructed prior to any works taken. So I suppose to the east of us is Doonella Residence. There will be a landscaping buffer there, as well as this road,

00:47:00 as well as the landscaping that will be carried out as part of this development. I've considered it in my assessment, as contained in the report, as being appropriate. This is noting the area of, I suppose the separation between the Doonella Residences, as well as the use of different materials on this elevation, and how they've used landscaping to complement the design. So that takes us to our next area of variation, which is car parking. So this is one of the floor plans on the site, and I just thought it'd be a bit easier to pop this one up so we can see how constrained this site is, noting the grade. So this is the car parking area that's shaded in grey. You'll notice to the bottom of the page that's all hatch, so that's essentially backfill. So with the planning scheme, the way we determine the number of car parking spaces required for the development is based off the development type, which in this instance is units.

00:48:00 So there's a requirement of one car parking space per unit. So that comes to 25. And then in addition to that, they have to make an allowance for visitor car parking spaces, which is determined at one space per four units, which requires a total of 32 car parking spaces. And due to the way that the scheme's been written, obviously you round up car parking spaces, so which takes us to a shortfall of one car parking space in this instance. In consideration of, I suppose, the type of use that we're looking to accommodate on the site and the typical clientele, the location to public transport, and I suppose our briefing from the operators in terms of how they typically function, the shortfall of the one space has been considered acceptable through the assessment of the scheme. If we move on to the next area of variation, that is building setbacks.

00:49:00 I think so. So I think this summarises it quite well for us. So on the right-hand side, this is our eastern elevation, and this is going to be the new internal road. So where we've got red, these are the areas of relaxation that the developer, the applicant, is seeking. So in the grand scheme of the development, it's considered quite marginal. For on the eastern side, you'll see that it essentially relates to roof overhang. So there's no on-ground impact. It is roof overhang that's encroaching within that area. And then to the south, they are required to have a six-metre setback to an internal road which will be servicing the cemetery. So it's not adjoining another development. It's considered to have marginal impacts. Speaker 9: Can I just add to that? The application is over the whole of the lot,

00:50:00 and this assessment has assessed the setbacks based on the future lot boundary. So technically, the assessment could have been based upon the existing title arrangement and said, well, this is clearly compliant with the setback requirements. But what we've actually done is considered where that future lot boundary would be and what that setback would be in relation to that lot boundary. Speaker 6: So again, a part of the subdivision that will be finalised over the site, there's a series of landscaping also within that road reserve. So it's going to be well and truly, I suppose, screened, and it's going to complement the built form quite well. And if we jump to our next one, it's private open space. So as you can see, Unit 15 down there, shaded in green. So there's a provision in the scheme about the minimum of private open space per each dwelling, which is 20 square metres at ground level.

00:51:00 In this instance, we don't really achieve that. We are three square metres short. But considering the communal spaces on the site, which you can see is above the car parking, so it's like that landscaped platform that's titled Breezeways Planters, there's a couple of breakout spaces there, as well as a significant setback along the frontage of the Lake McDonald frontage of the property. Speaker 9: Just to make sure that's clear, we're talking about this area here initially, which is where there's the breakout areas. Yeah. But there's also a significant area from this retaining wall here to the front boundary of the site, which is also available for residents to utilise. Speaker 6: Yeah. So in this instance, I suppose the performance outcome has been satisfied in this regard. Mayor Wilkie: That Lake McDonald Drive boundary required a six metre setback, but there's an 11 metre setback. Yes. So you're saying that there's extra open space?

00:52:00 Yes. Speaker 9: That's right. That pathway is in the site, so there's an ability for people to manoeuvre around that area and also to recreate in terms of taking a seat. Just a question. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, we might allow Georgina to finish her report before we go to questions. Georgina, do you want to continue your report for us? Sure. Thank you. Speaker 6: So on the next slide that we have highlights the roof form treatment to Lake McDonald Drive. So whilst it's acknowledged in the assessment that this elevation does not replicate the traditional residential character that's, I suppose, desired by the local plan, which talks to, like, gabled roof form, so we're essentially getting a pitched roof along the frontage, the design has taken into consideration the history of Cooroy and supporting material part of the application, I suppose, has lent on that it is...

00:53:00 It is designed to reflect a saw blade, which is in reference to Cooroy's historic timber milling industry along that elevation. And then I suppose in this assessment, something that I suppose we identified is that the Code does talk to getting that Queenslander sort of roof pitch, roof form. However, it's typically more so relevant to single dwellings or duplex developments where the built form is more narrow, whereas it would be quite difficult, I would imagine, to achieve a compliant design on this site whilst maintaining the eight metre height... ..the provision for eight metres in building height. It'd be likely that the pitch would again exceed that blanket. Speaker 9: The planning scheme includes a number of figures around preferred roof form character and they're all residential single dwellings.

00:54:00 Speaker 6: So I suppose in summary, despite these areas of non-compliance, the development's considered to uphold the performance outcomes and objectives of the Noosa Plan. And it does deliver a significant community benefit through providing much needed housing within the Shire and has been recommended for approval. Something of note is that for transparency, as the site is under Council ownership prior to this application being put in front of us today, it has been peer reviewed by an external consultant who generally agrees... ..well, does agree with our recommendation. Speaker 9: Thank you. I think in summary, it's important to note that this is a consistent use, so that the amendments to the planning scheme have identified that this use within the community facility zone is consistent. So therefore, the assessment has really focused

00:55:00 upon these issues that Georgina has spoken through, reflected through the imagery as well and noting that they are quite minor, those variations that are sought, hence why we're comfortable approving this roof form. Councillor Lorentson: Madam Chair. Through us, some questions, yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mayor Wilkie: Mayor Wilkie. You mentioned that it's a consistent use for this site. You talked about acceptable outcomes and performance-based outcomes against which the development is assessed against. When acceptable examples given in acceptable outcomes are not strictly met, can you explain for those who may be listening how compliance with the performance outcomes determines its consistency with the scheme or not? Speaker 9: Thank you. So the acceptable outcomes are one way to demonstrate compliance with the performance outcomes.

00:56:00 They can often be quite prescriptive. I think in the main, this development meets most prescriptive outcomes in terms of building height, site cover, gross floor area. When there's elements of non-compliance, your next level of assessment is to look at the left-hand column, which is the performance outcome, and that will provide a range of measures to assess the impacts of the non-compliance against, which is what Georgina has done, and in our assessment determined that whilst there might be minor non-compliances, the objectives of those performance outcomes are still met. Mayor Wilkie: Which is why it's been recommended for... Speaker 9: Which is why it's been recommended. Consistent with the planning scheme. And consistent with the planning scheme. That's correct. Performance-based planning scheme. Speaker 4: That's correct. Can I just add, just to Patrick's comments, Mayor Wilkie, that the acceptable outcomes are essentially a deemed-to-comply provision. So once you meet that,

00:57:00 you automatically comply with the performance outcome. Obviously, in this case, where it doesn't strictly meet the acceptable outcome, we get into what we call a merit assessment or performance assessment. We're assessing the merits of those particular proposals against the performance outcome. So, which is very normal and part of a standard assessment process to ensure that you get aligned with the outcomes sought in the planning scheme along with those performance outcomes as well. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. I've got quite a few questions, so I'm just wondering whether I might park my questions and forward some to you. I've had already. But probably the only question I will ask today and again for anyone around the table is in terms of the stormwater and flooding risk. Just really want to know whether the erosion and sediment control plan,

00:58:00 has it been designed using up-to-date, site-specific rainfall data? And I reference this in light of just recent rainfalls. The calculations, I think, show that the detention capacity only captures 34 mils of rainfall. And the question is, you know, in light of what just happened, what happens when there's frequent, short, intense storms that we've been witnessing just recently? Speaker 4: Yes, I'm happy to answer that one, Councillor. So, in terms of the current proposal, it's before you, that relates to the future land use of Lot 1. The situation you're referring to, I guess, relates to the subdivision site, which is currently under construction. And I guess what I would say is that there's current investigations underway in terms of any releases. And this local government council is working with DEDSI, the State Department, in relation to those matters. And in terms of other aspects relating to the subdivision works,

00:59:00 obviously there's contractual arrangements in place and they're subject to commercial and confidence situations. So, I guess at this stage, there's not much more to say publicly about those, apart from their investigation and contractual matters are afoot in relation to that. And I guess they don't specifically relate to the proposal. I guess that's being considered before the council. Councillor Lorentson: Again, I've got quite a few, so I'm happy to wait till the general. Is there anyone around the table that would like to ask any questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just the application of the private open space, I presume, as this is going to be kept as a federal accommodation, the units won't be separately titled. Does that make any difference in terms of what can be considered exclusive use? Because basically there is no exclusive use on the site if there isn't a title.

01:00:00 Speaker 9: We look at private open space allocated to each drawing and generally in a fenced area. And that level of separation is what we'll assess. I think it is relevant and important to the amenity of the residents that they are provided their own area. But again, noting that there are extensive areas throughout the site which they can also use. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It was just technical interest because in this situation, and what happens if we're up on a four storey unit, we still have to have a deck that big. Speaker 9: It actually decreases the amount of area and it does relate to the width of the terrace or the deck and also the total area. So you don't need 20 square metres if you're the fourth floor up. I think it comes down to nine square metres. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I understand the need. It was just that technical thing in my head going, how can you assign exclusive use if you haven't got any title? Councillor Lorentson: Just a question out of curiosity. The title of the report is

01:01:00 Application for Material Change of Use for Multiple Dwellings, Affordable Rental Premises. My understanding... Oh, it's in the report that Christchurch Bay negotiated a CFA, Capital Funding Agreement, with the state and that was contingent on the project being explicitly for social housing. How... Why were we called it Affordable Housing? And I know, you know, the umbrella is broad, but the funding is quite clear that it had to be for social. Can I just... Yeah, go ahead. Speaker 6: Yeah, sure. So with the introduction of the Affordable Rental Premises, it captures quite a few different definitions, so that including affordable housing entirely consisting of small dwellings and then goes into the... I suppose the particulars around who...

01:02:00 It's particulars about who it's managed by being a registered community housing provider. So, sorry, your question is more so, does it still align with the CHA? CFA. CFA. Yeah. Speaker 4: There's no strict definition in the planning scheme for social housing as such, though, but obviously this fits in the definition of affordable rental premises, which enables social and affordable housing in different models, obviously, where there is a community housing provider involved. So it doesn't conflict, I guess, with the intention of what the funding is that's being sought, and obviously it's being based on the assessment of the land use itself. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it would be true to say social housing is the requirements of the funders about who goes into it, and land use planning doesn't fit with the who would only consent as the where and the development itself. Is that one way to look at it?

01:03:00 Speaker 9: That is one way to look at it. But we can look at it further. My understanding is that the land use, the affordable rental premises, are okay from a social housing point of view and the funding. But we can clarify that as well. Councillor Lorentson: That would be great. Okay. We might just leave it, and I'm happy to note that this report goes to the general meeting. Can I have a second? Thank you. Thank you. No further discussion? All in favour? Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Are we back in two minutes? Councillor Lorentson: No worries. And I might take this opportunity just to clarify the role of the Chair under Moosa Council's standing orders, that the role of the Chair is actually to control the debate of the table, and it is also the role that the Chair should call a mover and a seconder. And that's under, I think, Section 26, 27, 28 of the standing orders, just for clarity and just also

01:04:00 so that the Chair is allowed to control the meeting. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And there's also a part in there that talks about once a motion is moved, there should be a vote for a seconder. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Tom? Can we have a quick break? If Frank's out of order, I'll get the coffee moving through me. Absolutely. So I'm going to move that we just close the meeting for five minutes for a comfort break. Can I have a seconder, please? Thank you. All in favour? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't need to move. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you.

01:09:00 Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Welcome back. We're up to report for consideration of the committee 7.4, planning applications decided by delegated authority. And Patrick, if I can ask you to run through the report.

7.4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – DECEMBER 2025 ¶

▶ 01:09:28

01:10:00 Speaker 9: Thank you. Our monthly report on those applications that were decided under delegation by the officers for the month of December. 30 decisions that were made under delegation, all approved. One application approved by council in that month of December. Again, a wide range of applications. A bit of a shorter month due to the Christmas break. So yeah, the team were quite busy leading into Christmas. Councillor Lorentson: My first question, the three superseded planning scheme applications that were approved. Can you talk about that? Can you talk us through those? Speaker 9: I can. So they all relate to the one property. So you've got SPS 25, 0001 and then the 0.01 and the 0.02. So the primary application being for the dual occupancy and then the subsequent applications being for operational works and the reconfiguration of the lot.

01:11:00 The site is in the medium density residential zone and it's zone 642 square metres. So in December 24. Council made it known to the public that it was moving forward with the scheme for the duplex to be inconsistent on lots less than 1000 square metres. So and then when the state came back in September 9th of September 2025, they had flipped it and to a 600 square metre requirement. So these proponent had in that period commenced preparing plans. And were well advanced in their preparation for to lodge an application that would have been a consistent use under the superseded scheme. Obviously moving to an inconsistent use under the new scheme. So we consider it reasonable on that basis to have supported them in that endeavour.

01:12:00 And yeah, so hence why you've got those three applications showing being approved. Councillor Lorentson: Would there be any basis not to approve if you're preserving anything? I mean, you've got existing rights and you've got that opportunity under an SPS application that within 12 months you put in application. Are there any instances where we haven't? Speaker 9: We've refused a superseded planning scheme request. Well, when the previous scheme came in, there was a number of properties that were sought to be used for short term accommodation that weren't approved. There was obviously a number that were approved. And a big part of that assessment was what would the potential compensation risk or compensation that might be payable for a refusal, if that was the case. Okay. Questions? Councillor Wegener: What address were you talking about? Councillor Lorentson: The last three on Hilton Terrace. 51 Wilkin Jones. 51 Wilkin Jones. Yeah.

01:13:00 Okay. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Further questions? I have a question. Councillor Wegener: 15 and 17 Mile Street, Cooroy. With the two dwellings and 11 small dwellings. Pull that one up. It's a pretty big development there on a really busy bottleneck, Tep Street. Can you just give me some details on that one? Speaker 9: So that application being adjacent to a state controlled road would have been referred to the state who supported the application. The officers would have done their own assessment as well in terms of capacity for safe entrance and exit. It is two lots. A positive outcome in terms of the provision of a number of dwellings and also, you know, significant number of those being small dwellings. So, yeah. A reason to support the application.

01:14:00 Councillor Wegener: With the... Is there a back driveway by any chance where they can go out? Speaker 9: No. No. There won't be a back driveway. No. No. Noting this report is presented to council for noting and generally the level of detail to drill down into the applications is not something I can undertake on 30 applications before the meeting. So I'm going to take on board any comments and provide you with information post the meeting. It would be preferable. Councillor Wegener: Last question. Yeah. Sorry about that. And the last question. But Patrick, I want to check with you later on that one. Can we get just a little bit of clarity. Councillor Lorentson: Nature-based tourism, Dr. Page's Road Cabalabra, again, approved code-accessible application. What's meant by nature-based tourism? Are they eco-cottages or...? Speaker 9: Yeah, some cabins. And seeking to avail...

01:15:00 These are nature-based tourism. Either seek to avail... Some ecological values on the site, ecological recreation type activity on the site, or they're located within close proximity generally of the Noosa Trail, so that they can go hiking or cycling tours. Councillor Lorentson: So have we changed the name, Patrick? Like nature-based, I always thought we'd reference like eco-cabins or... Is this new or have I dismissed it? Speaker 9: Well, there's a number of... So the eco-cabins will often be done through just short-term accommodation, so they're seeking no more than... There's no interaction really, I suppose, with the guests. They just come and they stay in the cabins, short-term accommodation. But here there's a connection between the people with the accommodation and the land itself or the surrounding area and some activity that's generally provided. So nature-based tourism is a definition within the scheme in its own right. Short-term accommodation is a definition within the scheme in its own right. So it's sometimes navigating that pathway to ensure it's one and not the other.

01:16:00 Councillor Lorentson: So it is a short-term accommodation we're approving, but it's consistent... It's consistent... ...under the scheme as being a nature-based... Speaker 4: Well, nature-based tourism is, yes. It's its own land definition. It has its own land use definition. Yes, it's in a planning scheme as a definition for a use that can be considered and applied for. And as specific, as Patrick mentioned, linkages to the ecological or the natural or the environmental values that it needs to, I guess, progress as part of its proposal. So it needs to have a linkage to a nature-based aspect, whether that's a recreation or an educational piece or the like. So you can probably provide maybe some more information too about that particular application, if you'd like some more information about that. Councillor Lorentson: Is it captured in terms of numbers when we look at how many STAs we have? Is it included in that database or not?

01:17:00 Speaker 9: In terms of the short-term accommodation... Councillor Lorentson: How many we have operating? And is it captured under our transitory rating? Speaker 9: I'd have to come back to you on that. Okay. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Any further questions? Questions around the table? All right. Who would like to move it? Thank you, Tom. Can we have a seconder? Awesome. No further discussion? Yes, councillors? Oh, no. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry about that. Councillor Lorentson: All in favour? Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. Speaker 9: Thank you. Thanks, Patrick. Councillor Lorentson: So we now move to item 7.5. And thank you, Richard. Item 7.5. Welcome to the desk, Ben. Multi-year environment collaboration grants and organisational alliance grants proposed reschedule. And then if you can give us an overview or summary of the report in front of us.

7.5 MULTI-YEAR ENVIRONMENT COLLABORATION GRANTS AND ORGANISATIONAL ALLIANCE GRANTS PROPOSED RESCHEDULE ¶

▶ 01:17:45

01:18:00 Speaker 3: Thank you, Chair. Good morning, councillors. It's quite a simple proposal, what we're planning. But there's a bit of information sitting in the background. Thank you. Under the environment levy, environment and grants policy, we issue, council issues two streams of multi-year grants. And they're both three-year grants. One's an alliance grant, which is there to basically support organisations, not for profit organisations, to be able to function. And the other one is multi-year environment grants, where we're looking for larger, more complex environment-minded grant projects that have better outcomes. Both of those grants. Both of those grant streams are currently due on the 30th of June this year. So we're in the final year of those three-year grants. And so normally at this time, we'd have our multi-year grants open for applications. And we'd be receiving and negotiating with grant applications or people or organisations

01:19:00 that are going to put in applications for the next three years. However, when we assess those grant applications, we put 50% of the weighting of the grant applications that are connected directly to the objectives and key outcomes of the environment strategy. And the environment strategy is currently towards the end of a review, mid-year review. And it's been seven years since we've reviewed the environment strategy. And we know that sitting within that, there's likely to be some subtle changes within some of the objectives and proposals that are put forward for council to consider. And those changes have come about through the last seven years. We've seen some changes. We've changed a lot with some of the new plans that have been implemented, particularly around climate change. We've got the CHAP. We've got climate change response. We've got the road towards net zero. We've also got a waste plan. And so out of the current environment strategy, waste and climate change are 50% of what's

01:20:00 addressed in there. But now we've got more mature plans sitting in there. We've also got more contemporary information and survey data. And the industry, the environment industry, has changed and evolved a little bit. So it's good to be able to contemporise the environment strategy. So we're at a particular point where we're coming into a period where we're proposing to, or normally we would accept applications for new multi-year grants. But we know that we're just about to put forward a paper to council to review the environment strategy. So if we assess the grants on the current strategy, knowing that potentially there might be a more contemporary strategy within the next few months, we might be entering into three-year agreements, which are attached to an outdated strategy. Now, in terms of size under the current funding agreements, that represents over a three-year period, just over a million dollars. So that's a reasonable sum of money that's going out into the community that we'd like

01:21:00 to see invested in a contemporary strategy. Rather than an existing one. Now, since writing the paper, this has all come through in a little bit of a rush. We realised our timelines weren't going to match up. I've discussed this with all of our current grant recipients and the multi-year environment grants, of which we've got seven. All of those programs can extend for another year with extensions of KPIs. And so they're all mature programs with really good outcomes. And that we'd see that those outcomes delivered for another 12 months under a bridging agreement. And all of the alliance grants, all of those organisations were intending to apply for another three-year grant. And so the proposal is to delay the grant round, the multi-year grant round this year, have it open for applications next year, and the current recipients to have a 12-month bridging agreement. From a legal and procurement perspective. We can do that under our policies.

01:22:00 We've engaged with, I can't remember the name of the law firm, but it was one that our procurement branch uses. And they've given us the, okay, there's no issue from a local government act perspective. And in fact, they said it was a fairly prudent path forward for contemporary investment, or making sure that we're investing money in the right way. So the one-year bridging agreements for... For all of the recipients, if we were to proceed with this, we're yet to work out what that means. But it's likely to be a very brief contract, which references the existing contracts with just an extension of those KPIs that sit in there. Councillor Lorentson: So the acquittal process will be the same as the multi-year process? That's correct. Speaker 3: Yeah. So currently the acquittal process, we do a 12-month acquittal process where we check in at each 12 months to be able to make sure that they're doing it. And then we have a final acquittal. All of the years are exactly the same in terms of the acquittal process.

01:23:00 It's just anchored to whatever deliverables they're seeing that particular year. Councillor Lorentson: Questions around the table? Councillor Wegener: I'll move it. Councillor Lorentson: We might just... Okay. It's okay, Tom. Let's just see this. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's a new phone. I've turned it off. Honestly, not. Councillor Lorentson: Questions around the table first before we move on. I've got a couple of questions, Ben. In terms of applicants, have they been informed about the delay? You mentioned you have touch base with all of them. Speaker 3: I've spoken to all of them. I've had a meeting with all of them. And I've had a meeting with all of them. And so the Alliance grants, they're more than happy to move through for another 12 months. With the multi-year environment grants, the discussion was a little bit more complex. We were talking about the maturity of their particular projects.

01:24:00 And so we talked about what those KPIs might look like for the next 12 months. And so as an example, keeping in Kin Kin, where we've got some specifics around landholders and what's going on the ground. We're looking at the next 12 months and how we might be able to work in some new parameters for that. It's an extension of the existing program, just with some new KPIs. Okay. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: And in terms of the multi-year, sorry, in terms of the environment strategies, you mentioned we're approaching seven years. So how often do we review? Is it five years or seven years? That seems quite long. Yeah. Speaker 3: Look, it's a good question. And the environment strategy was set out as a 10-year strategy document. The mid-year review was not built in there, but we thought it was, it felt right to put through a review, which we went through that budgeting process this time last year to be able to get some funds to be able to review it.

01:25:00 So yeah, that went through council as a, it's time to review it. And it's intended to be a light touch review. We're not rewriting the entire strategy. So it's just making it contemporary based on what's changed within council and what's changed within the industry as well. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Who would like to move, Tom? I'll move it. That'd be our new president. I'll second it, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mayor Wilkie. And who would like to speak during the report? Councillor Wegener: I was so excited about reading this report because it actually is a pivot from getting stuck into going through the old process and then perhaps getting stuck in with a three-year grant, which doesn't actually align with where we're going. It's a resetting of the vision for NUSA and starting with the BMP and the new environment strategy. And I find it happy for us because the vision that council has enacted and has voted upon

01:26:00 is being pushed through and seen through the strategies and the environment strategy. And I'm very, very happy about that. I think that it's a really good start for NUSA for this term here for us, especially gives us opportunities to change. And to get current and to begin with the times and to be the greatest council in Queensland, if not the world. So thank you. I really appreciate you doing that because we could have just stuck to saying, okay, well, we're going to give these grants out with the old strategy. But with the new strategies coming on, there may be new people coming in that share the vision for NUSA and say, oh, I want to jump on this. This is great. This is a great opportunity for people to do that, which otherwise they may not have

01:27:00 been so eager to jump on and to apply for the grant. So I think it's really exciting. It's a really impressive move for council to say, this is a problem. Let's change the problem. Let's fix it. Let's make it better and move forward. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Apologies if I missed it in the report. When is the recommendations from the mid-term environmental strategy review coming to council? Speaker 3: We are just going through executive briefings at the moment, which are starting at the start of March and pending those. I expect the council will see that in April or May. Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I want to put this question out there. I think it would be an interesting opportunity when you say you're talking about KPIs. I think it would be an interesting opportunity to ensure that all these groups are very good at what they do. Have they met not just their proposed outputs, but are they heading towards their outcomes? And to actually use this as a monitoring and evaluation step as well is to make sure that

01:28:00 they just don't put something in because it's easy that it's just continuing on. Are we doing the right thing to achieve the outcomes that we set out to, or can we do things a little bit different? And then on a lighter note, there's a long history of alliteration and keeping it in Kin Kin, and the current application we're looking at is keeping on keeping it in Kin Kin. I suggest next year we keep keeping it on. Sorry. Councillor Lorentson: One question before you leave, Ben. So just following up on that, are there any risks, and following up on what Tom said, are there any risks that the projects that we're already working on, are there any risks that the funding may not be included when we update our priorities? Scott, what's that risk? Yeah. You mentioned it's only minor tweaks, or are they major tweaks? Speaker 3: It's probably where the funding might come from to be able to support some of those

01:29:00 programs. And I look at Plastic Free Noosa, which is a crossover between Plastic Free Noosa and the environment. So the environment as an end impact of improper use of plastics. Should the environment level be funding it, or should our waste education be funding that program? And look, it's not my decision, but when the environment strategy was written, we didn't have a waste plan. We now have a waste plan with some quite detailed expectations as to what's sitting over the next 10 years. 10 to 20 years. And integration of those sort of things, whether they're more aligned to one area or another. The broad general areas of conservation, weed management, mitigating impact, being responsible for regenerative practices and stewardship, they'll remain the same in the environment

01:30:00 strategy. There might be some changes in locations. We know we've got more core data. We've got more species data. We've got more integrated plans that we're developing with the river and the catchment. So just being able to get everything talking to each other and aligned may change how we assess certain applications in different areas where those priority areas might have changed. Councillor Lorentson: Would that then affect funding then? Are we going to have the same pool of money, or we'll waste if it's going to be a standalone? That's not a question we can answer. Oh, okay. Excuse me. Sorry, Kim. You've got your hand raised. Go ahead. Director Rawlings: Yes. Well, just building on what Ben Derrick said, I think the risk is pretty low. The projects that we're doing at the moment are very much fundamentally aligned to the environmental

01:31:00 objectives and the environment strategy that are longstanding. And I think that's something that we need to do. And I think that's something that we need to do and are likely to, and will remain through a revised environment strategy. Like Ben said, there are some new areas that we will see coming to the environment strategy, building on contemporary work that council has done, things like the DMP and things like that. So that will influence going forward. And of course, there will be discussions with council about the ways in which these programs are funded. The mechanisms and the total amount. That's all standard conversation that needs to happen as part of budget considerations and reviewing strategy. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Kim. Anyone else would like to speak to the report? No. No further discussion. All in favour? That's unanimous.

01:32:00 And that brings us, I think, to the end. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ben. And that brings us to the last item. So reports for noting by the committee. 8.1. Cascading climate risk from critical infrastructure failure project report. And welcome to the desk of Ben Shoney. Would you want to start with Ben? Speaker 5: Pass over to Jo. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, Jo. You go ahead. Speaker 2: So our critical infrastructure, energy, telecommunications, and energy infrastructure are crucial for everything we do. We all know the challenges we face when we lose services. Power outages, no internet, disrupted water supply, and road closures. While we've all managed these kind of outages in our personal lives, how would we cope with disruptions that last days or weeks at a time? How do we cope when these outages affect multiple services?

8 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE ¶

▶ 01:32:12

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

8.1 CASCADING CLIMATE RISKS FROM CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FAILURE PROJECT REPORT ¶

▶ 01:32:15

01:33:00 Council services are no different to our homes in being dependent on power, telecoms, water, and transport, except that we have more than our families, depending on these services. If council is without power and water for a week or longer, how would we function? How would we keep staff safe if buildings can't be heated or cooled? Water isn't available and we can't call or email each other. How can we make good decisions if we don't have access to information when the internet goes down and computers can't be powered? The Cascading Climate Risk from Critical Infrastructure Failure Project, or the CIF project for short, was a two-year project. With $1.1 million in grant funding from the QRA through the Queensland Risk and Resilience Fund, the project addresses a key action in our regional climate action roadmap with the Sunshine Coast Council. Working with partners across the region, including Energex, Unity Water, Telstra, NBN Co, Queensland Fire Department, Department of Health, Queensland Police Service, and many more, the project

01:34:00 carefully examined the potential impacts on council services arising from outages in critical infrastructure. This work highlighted that climate change increases the likelihood of cascading and compounding types of hazards, which in turn increases the likelihood of disruption to critical infrastructure services. Crucially, the project found that disruptions to critical infrastructure can cascade across sectors, and these disruptions may last longer than we think. This could mean a week or more without critical infrastructure services. The project identified numerous risks to council. Broadly, these include reduced productivity, communication failures, disruption to disaster response activities, physical impacts to staff from unsafe and unclean workplaces for example if we don't have running water or can't keep the offices cooled, impacts to revenue streams if payments can't be processed, reduced quality of organisational decision-making, accountability, transparency, and ultimately reputational damage. We bring this report to council to share the important findings of the CIV project, but

01:35:00 also to demonstrate that the project has identified practical options to reduce the risks. A range of technological and non-technological measures, all of which are available now, were highlighted. In addition, the project developed a high-level business case that demonstrated the value of technological measures for two of our key sites, the Noosaville Depot, which includes the Local Disaster Coordination Centre, and the second case was the Leisure Centre, which is also our evacuation centre. These are great foundations, but will need to be proactive in responding to the findings across the organisation. This report seeks council support for continuing to leverage the ongoing partnership with Sunshine Coast Council and stakeholder reference group members, the representatives from many critical infrastructure service providers, to implement adaptation measures across the organisation, including priority actions to implement measures to reduce the risk of disaster. In addition, the CIV project has developed a number of measures to enhance the resilience of the depot and the LDCC, establish non-technical management solutions, and related to this,

01:36:00 establish the required organisational governance to drive holistic climate adaptation response. There's much work to be done, but the CIV project puts us in a position of having a much better understanding of the risks, and importantly the adaptation measures that can address these risks. I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank and acknowledge our partners in the project, the Sunshine Coast Council and the members of the stakeholder reference group, who have been instrumental in completing this project. Councillor Lorentson: Questions around the table. Thank you, Joe. Questions around the table. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, just a clarification about scope. So in figure one, you look at critical infrastructure failure, and you mentioned causes of loss of transport. Did we look at the loss of transport in the food supply chain? Speaker 5: Yes, thanks for the question, Councillor Stockwell. No, we didn't look at the food supply chain. We considered that significantly at the start of the scoping of the grant application,

01:37:00 whether we could include food supply. But it became too big for us to be able, it would have been unwielding to add that critical infrastructure as well. It's something that we, us and Sunshine Coast Council have identified as important for future assessments. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Another, it's more of a question around the scope of the recommendations. In figure three, you highlight using EV flat for power has trade-offs with using EVs for mobility. But you've identified there's an option of using EVs for mobility. And I'm, I became aware in the, the last big blackout that was put 14.8 for four and a half days, that there are now groups of EV owners who, who organise themselves so that if there was a need, they can, and those that have the 20, 240 volt output can come. Have we looked at setting up local arrangements around disaster where we can have voluntary opt-in, so people know if they, you know, people might be relying on life support that

01:38:00 needs, that needs power, that local EV operators say, I'll put my car in, plug it in. Speaker 2: We haven't investigated it as part of the project, but it's definitely something we're aware of. And I think we will be looking at options like that, definitely. Speaker 5: We have internally, Councillor Stockwell has spoken to Michael, our fleet manager about council vehicles and the opportunity for bi-directional chargers that can help power, for example, the LVCC. We haven't thought yet of drawing on potential community resources though, which could be part of emergency hubs that are set up, you know, in an event, but it's a great idea. Councillor Lorentson: Sure. Director Walsh: Through the Chair, if I may assist that, and as a disaster coordinator, it's a very good suggestion. And I'd say the best place to actually implement that is in the community cell lanes, so the community actually arrange that as it is, and I'll take that on notice to work with Sue

01:39:00 Bowery, our disaster management officer, to put that on the agenda for part of the community subplanes. I've got a community subplane meeting coming up this week. Would you reflect that as a new initiative for the new city? Councillor Wegener: Tom. Just to carry on from Brian's concern with food, during COVID, the most impressive thing that I've seen in my four years here is when the Pomona markets and the various markets were closed down, and there's people that would come to the markets, especially elderly that would buy their food. They set up a food tree, or a phone tree, a phone tree, and that's where they, the regulars would call each other, and then very quickly, they devised, everybody had to call 10 of their friends who called 10 of their friends, and through COVID, they actually distributed food in that way, through the phone tree, and how organically, quickly it appeared and how successful it was, was tremendous, and one person was identified who had passed away. Nobody would have known if they didn't have the phone tree, then call them, and this person

01:40:00 didn't respond to the phone, and eventually the police went out there. So I find that is a really great method, so just, you know, it's hard for you guys to do that, but I just wanted to point that out as a really good thing, and I love that you're talking about this, and bringing it to the report, and you guys are doing it, makes me feel a lot better that, you know, the cascading problems are being really looked at by staff and the team, so thank you for that. Speaker 5: Thanks, Councillor Tong. Great idea. Director Walsh: Yeah, and that's a great conversation, Councillor, because that's exactly what the community subplans are set up for, because, you know, in times of disaster, especially extended natural disasters, assisting our communities to be as resilient as possible, so they've actually already got lists of people who've been helped, and they reach out locally, even if they're isolated, to actually support each other. So community subplans are all about providing their internal resilience, and networks to provide goods and services that we can't supply externally, so that, and Ian and Sue, Ian

01:41:00 Williams and Sue Barry's work, is all in that resilient space of community subplans. Speaker 5: One of the actions that we identified in this project, which was quite interesting, was, and you might have come across it, is a technology called an atmospheric water generator, which are small solar modular, they draw water from humidity, and they can produce that without any need for power. And we were thinking, well, if we were to roll that out at our community gardens, and pair that with a phone tree model, that's pretty good, because there's water and food in hubs around Noosa that can provide that backup resilience for communities, so these ideas are excellent, and ones that we look to explore further down the track. Mayor Wilkie: Mayor Wilkie? Thank you. You've started to touch on it. When these ever-increasing climate disasters occur, and critical infrastructure like electricity, telecommunications, and water services fail, what simple solutions are you actually proposing?

01:42:00 You started to talk about them there. I think you're about happy to answer. Speaker 2: Yeah, so the report covers a whole range of options that we can use, and we need to be looking at bundling them, so we're not just looking at making a sales report, we're looking at making sure that we're resilient to one type of infrastructure failure, but looking across all of them. There are a range of solutions that we've covered, including things like for electricity, solar backup, generators. For water, there's things like water tanks with filtration, there's a whole lot of things, but we need to go through a process now of identifying what the best combinations are for our sites, and then what scale we'll need, and then have to roll those out. So it'll be different for different sites, and also we've got some places like the leisure centre, which already has solar, so maybe it's looking at what are our water tanks like, are they capable, are they resilient, so it'll be different for every site, but there's a whole range of options identified.

01:43:00 Speaker 5: And if you want, Mayor, I can provide a short list of non-technical measures as well, because it was both technical and non-technical. Mayor Wilkie: You've referred to some, briefly, in your battery, solar, Starlink, Speaker 5: Yeah, radios, UPS systems, rainwater tanks, emergency water kits. Mayor Wilkie: You presented this report to the LDMJ, and it was very well received, and you also said you'd present it to the Department of Premier and Cabinet? Yes. So tell us about that presentation, and what were their observations about this piece of work? Speaker 5: We were invited by the QR, the Queensland Reconstruction Authority, to present this project to their critical infrastructure resilience working group that they have with multiple state agencies, including the Department of Premier and Cabinet, and it was, again, very well received. Very highly commended as probably the first instance of local government looking at cascading and compounding climate risks in Queensland, potentially in Australia, and so the findings

01:44:00 will be advanced. Thank you. And we've been asked to do multiple presentations to a few of the agencies in particular as follow up as well, as taking the findings to conferences. Some of the findings, as you guys will note, are confidential, because the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018, particularly the details on regional critical infrastructure just because of national security. So we can't release all the details. We can't release all the findings, but certainly the risks, the council services and the responses are things that we can work on. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. So the risks that have been identified in this project, have they already been captured in our strategic risk register? And if not, should they? And are there some immediate gaps that we need to sort of identify and act on? Speaker 5: That's a great question. Thank you, Chair. They have been incorporated into our strategic risk register, but not comprehensively yet.

01:45:00 I understand speaking with our governance manager that there's a process to this year for improving our enterprise risk and opportunity management framework and the guidelines, which includes the strategic risk register. So we will look to it now that the project is completed. We took an opportunity last year when we had a good idea of the risks to start outlining some of them in our strategic risk register. But we can do that a bit more comprehensively now that the project's finished. Councillor Lorentson: So in terms of the $1.1 million grant funding, it sounds like it was really well spent. And in terms of, you know, if we didn't have the funding, would this work or these sort of insights, would they have happened anyway or not likely? It just sounds like this wouldn't have happened. Speaker 5: No, it wouldn't have happened without external funding. No. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you.

01:46:00 One more scoping question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Finding this project have violent risk to delivery of council services due to disruptions of infrastructure. So most of the conversation appears to be around the pulse impacts of disasters related to climate. Did the project also look at the press of the slower-moving risks in terms of, you know, what I can think of is sea-level rise in urban areas? Did you look at that? And is there anything that has come at it from that perspective? Speaker 5: It did, but to a lesser extent, unfortunately. We found that in the risk workshops. We had over 50 engagements, workshops, briefings, presentations throughout the project. And we found that through the workshops, it was, it became quite difficult to have multiple scenarios of critical infrastructure.

01:47:00 So, you know, we did look at it and there are some interesting insights and findings, but not to the extent and not to the urgency of what of the acute hazards that we have quite a lot to do already on. Mayor Wilkie: So, yeah, plenty to keep you busy. There's plenty to keep us busy. Yes. Happy to move it, Madam Chair. Councillor Lorentson: Can I please have a seconder? Thank you. Yeah, thank you. And would you like to speak? I would, thank you, Madam Chair. Mayor Wilkie: Look, as Chair of the LDMG, it's a great pleasure to see work of this quality come forward. It's not only will the recommendations in it, which are subject to budget approval, not only will they allow our local disaster coordination centre and our LDMG disaster response to function as it should, should critical infrastructure fail, it will, it's

01:48:00 a blueprint to allow councillors across Queensland to follow suit and also be able to better serve their communities during a disaster should their critical infrastructure fail. It's a very important piece of work and I commend you on what you've achieved. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So my understanding is this project actually has had ripple effects in that the range of infrastructure providers have started to think about the issue. It was leading in that respect. I think that's really important to understand that it's not just local government, it's other levels of government that need to start thinking about this and putting the practical on the ground, the steps in place. I think the other thing this shows, and while we're very focused on Noosa Shire, there's some issues that make sense to deal with at a regional scale.

01:49:00 And once again, this project shows that when it comes to issues like adapting to climate change, we can't have an isolationist perspective. We have to look at our role in the broader environment. And the partnership here with Sunshine Coast Council through the roadmap and then leading to this project has really shown where we share. Interests, where we share risks, and how we can share the task of addressing them. So in a range of ways, it's a very useful project to look at, not just internally, but how we engage externally with other councils, but also other infrastructure providers. So well done. Mayor Wilkie: Question, Madam Chair. Thank you. Will you please pass on our thanks and acknowledgement of your partners in this work? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Definitely. Speaker 5: Just a point of order, that was your question. I will just comment on what you said there, Councillor Stockwell. I can't probably understate how interesting it was to see when we were working with critical infrastructure providers that have a lens that's either regional, state like Energex, or even national like Telstra.

01:50:00 But impacts are felt locally, right? But they don't have that level of insight because they're operating at such a broader scale. So it was so interesting. And to see when we looked at these local risk workshops and worked that out with them, how their mindset and perspective change. And I think that was quite eye-opening and impactful. Councillor Lorentson: I'm going to quickly just speak. I think it's really important to outline that we have in council an enterprise risk and opportunity management policy and associated framework that actually articulates that council will only tolerate unfair risk. We've had interruptions to critical services up to one day and I'm sort of putting all the pieces together and really understanding the importance of this project because I keep going back to what does this mean in terms of risk to council staff, operations and delivery of services and you know more than one day is huge in terms of council staff, operations and delivery of services.

01:51:00 Bonds and delivering core services to our community, it's really quite important that we start putting this future lens on and really identify the immediate risk. Speaker 5: Well said, Jan. Couldn't agree more. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. And again, commend to Police Sunshine Coast Council. Again, money really well spent. Thank you. No further time? Did you want to speak? Councillor Wegener: No, just ditto. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks. Fantastic. Thank you very much.

01:52:00 Thank you. Thank you. And that brings us... Oh, sorry. No further discussion. No closing. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie, Olin Baybar, that's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. And that brings us to the close. There are no confidential sessions. I now declare the meeting closed. It is 11.25. Thank you, everyone.

9 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION ¶

▶ 01:52:24

Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.

10 MEETING CLOSURE ¶

▶ 01:53:10

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.