1 DECLARATION OF OPENING ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Wilkie: 26, declare the meeting open at 10am and we begin by acknowledging that we're meeting on the traditional lands and waters of the Kabi Kabi people. Pay my respects to Elders past, present and emerging and reiterate their acknowledgement of each and every one of us as joint custodians in respecting and caring for this beautiful place that we all love and respecting and caring for each other. We have all councillors in attendance. Item four is confirmation of the minutes. May we have a mover and seconder for the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 18th of June 2026. Councillor Lorentson, seconded by Councillor Phillips. All in favour? That's unanimous. Can we have a mover and seconder for the minutes of the special meeting held on 23rd of June 2026? Councillor Wegener, seconded by Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's unanimous. Item five, there are no petitions. Item six, there are no presentations. Today we have two deputations. The first is from Frances Atkins of the Cooroy Gymnastics Club and the topic is redevelopment of their
2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
4.2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING 23 JUNE 2026 ¶
00:01:00 facility. So the speakers are Frances Atkins, Tace Scott, Kirsten and Kirsten Norton. Councillor Councillor Phillips: Phillips, I believe you have a declaration. Thank you. I would like to inform the meeting that I, Councillor Jessica Phillips, inform the meeting that I have a material personal interest in relation to item 7.1, applicant Frances Atkins, Cooroy Gymnastics Club, topic the redevelopment of their facility on this agenda. As I'm the general manager of Cooroy Gymnastics Club, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Phillips. And just for the benefit of those in the gallery, this is not a decision-making presentation. We're receiving a deputation. Okay. Thank you. Frances Atkins: Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. My name is Frances Atkins. I'm a committee member with Cooroy Gymnastics Club and I'm joined today by Tace Scott, President of the Club, and Kirsten Norton, our gymnastics team
7 DEPUTATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
7.1 APPLICANT: FRANCES ATKINS, COOROY GYMNASTICS CLUB TOPIC: REDEVELOPMENT OF THEIR FACILITY SPEAKERS: FRANCES ATKINS (COMMITTEE MEMBER), TAYCE SCOTT (PRESIDENT), KIRSTEN NORDEN (GYMNASTICS TEAM LEAD) ¶
00:02:00 lead. We're here today to discuss the redevelopment of the Cooroy Gymnastics Facility, state-of-the-art sporting infrastructure located in the hinterland of Noosav, right in the centre of Cooroy. It's said to be the home for up to 1,000 future gymnasts and their families, as well as supporting infrastructure for local cricket and football clubs operating out of the same location. The investment in the redevelopment is a genuine vote of confidence in our club and the broader sporting community. While this is a great new story for our region, it comes with a serious short-term challenge. We're here today because we need assistance from Council to help us solve it. What was originally set out in tender documents as a one-term shutdown of the club for construction works has now grown to two, potentially three, starting this year. This critical change, one we were not consulted on, is a big unbudgeted cost for a volunteer-led, not-for-profit sports
00:03:00 club to carry, one that now threatens the existence of the club itself. We have 15 minutes and this is how we plan to use it. Tace will discuss the circumstances of the shutdown, Kirsten will explain the task of running a temporary gymnastics facility, and I'll close with what we're asking Council for and why. The redevelopment of the Cooroy Gymnastics Facility should be the best thing to ever happen to our club, not the thing that ends it. Our goal today is to discuss reasonable ways in which we can overcome this together, so the club doesn't fail, but rather thrives. I'll pass it on to Tace now. Speaker 3: Thank you, Frances. So, Cooroy Gymnastics Club has been part of this community for 35 years. Everything we've built here is entirely volunteer-led and not-for-profit. This year
00:04:00 alone, our membership has grown by around 40% and we have had our most successful competition season, with national and cross-border competitions. This year alone, our membership has grown by around 40% and we have had our most successful competition season, with national and cross-border representation and a run of personal bests for our gymnasts. When the redevelopment was first planned, keeping the club operational for as long as possible was a key priority for all stakeholders, and this was reflected in the original tender document. Construction was to be staged to keep the club open, and to minimise the shutdown for no more than one term. On that basis, the club was to remain open until the end of this year. We could maintain our competitive program, borrowing other clubs' facilities on weekends and outside of hours. And our recreational families could manage being without their usual programs for one term.
00:05:00 That is no longer the plan that we are working to. The contractors' decision to extend the shutdown to two, potentially three, is no longer the plan that we are working to. The decision to extend the shutdown to three, potentially three, was made without any consultation with the club. Losing our recreational program for six months or more puts the existence of our entire club at risk. It means our competitive program won't be able to compete for at least one full season. This is because for health and safety reasons, every week of lost training for our juniors takes roughly two months to complete. We need two weeks of basic strength work before our gymnasts can return to competition skills. There's one more thing that's worth understanding about a gymnastics club. It takes years, not months,
00:06:00 to build a technical coaching team. I'm an HR professional, and I can see first-hand the shortage of qualified gymnastics coaching talent, endemic across the sport, and the difficulty at high performance levels and in regional areas like ours. If we lose the coaching and management team that we have built, we can't simply replace it. We start again. We lose our grip on the opportunities that we've already begun building towards the lead-up to the Brisbane Olympics, just five years away, and the role our new facility could play in that. Right now, approximately 420 gymnasts, staff and volunteers, and local families call Cooroy Gymnastics Club home. Every one of them will be affected by what happens over the next 12 months.
00:07:00 That's the backdrop we bring to you today, a club that has taken 35 years to build, that now faces an existential challenge. Due to a decision that was made without our involvement. What Kirsten is about to describe is the practical cost of getting from here to there. Speaker 1: Thank you, Tess. I've worked in gymnastics, strength conditioning, and athletic development for 20 years at the Australian National Centre of Excellence, and I have an advanced silver in gymnastics, along with a bachelor of exercise in sport science. I've worked in gymnastics, strength conditioning, and athletic development for 20 years at the Australian National Centre of Excellence. I have worked across multiple sports, developing pathways for athletic development. It's not just in gymnastics. Gymnastics is a rare case, and to create a safe, operating, and thriving, but continually growing program is different. And that's what I would like to talk about.
00:08:00 How to run a gymnastics program out of temporary sites, because it isn't like most sports. You can't run gymnastics from a park. I tried. A school hall, or a converted shed. If we needed a basketball court, a soccer field, or a tennis court, we could find one here. But there is no competitive gymnastics facility within our Shire. There is simply nowhere for us to go. Every piece of apparatus that we use, so beam, bars, vault, floor, has to be checked, and it has to be ticked off by Gymnastics Australia. It has to be certified to the standards at every single site that we use. So there is a compliance process that takes real time and money, and it has to happen before a single child can safely step onto our floor. On top of that, most standard community halls don't quite meet our minimum ceiling height requirements, or floor loading, or even the clear space that's required to run gymnastics.
00:09:00 We have been searching for six months, and know there are few suitable temporary venues in our region to use. From where we stand today, with the options available to us, we'll need to operate across two to three temporary sites. That means we need to duplicate almost every cost and effort, set up, pack down labour across two to three locations. This is what it looks like in practice. Today, Cooroy Gymnastics Club runs 78 classes per week, and before each one, our coaches and volunteers will be bumping in money, beans and safety equipment, and then bumping it all out afterwards. If we are sharing a venue, that also means that we're going outside of their other booking. Multiply that task by two to three venues, and you see the real ongoing cost that a single
00:10:00 membership fee was really never designed to cover. But the part I think matters most, though a significant financial burden, isn't the direct cost of relocating. It's what this does to our underlying business model, which is at risk not just during the shutdown, but ongoing. To stay financially viable, a gymnastics club needs its membership to be at least 75% recreational rather than competitive. Recreational classes run in larger groups, at a lower cost per head, and that's the revenue that funds our high-cost, low-margin competitive squads. They're the ones that produce the most money. They produce the results that Tay spoke about. It's a carefully balanced model, and only works if that ratio does hold. Recreational families are also the most convenient, sensitive part of our membership. They're the ones that would quietly drop off if we were in a site further away, harder
00:11:00 to get to after school, or just a little less appealing than where they now call home. So the challenge during the shutdown, and immediately after it, is whether we can keep enough of the right kind of membership in the right conditions to remain a viable business while we wait for our new home. If we upset this balance, no amount of fundraising can fix it. That's the operational and financial reality we're navigating. I'll hand it back to Frances to explain exactly what we're asking for. Thank you. Frances Atkins: Thank you. Thank you, Kirsten. Despite delivering our best season in years, 40% membership growth this year, our strongest competition results, and the real prospect of an Olympic standard facility, this club faces an existential crisis. The cost of relocating and running split temporary sites is real, and so is the risk of losing recreational members as we move away from our core location in Cooroy.
00:12:00 We've estimated the additional out-of-pocket costs of operating temporary split sites at $62,000 per term, including lease costs, moving and storing equipment, additional insurances, class programming, and administrative support, compared with the existing total revenue of $64,000 on our current membership, which already operates on thin margins as a non-profit community sporting club. If we lose between 25% to 50% of our current membership, we'll have to go back to our 10% of our recreational membership during this period, which is entirely feasible, particularly if we move outside of the Cooroy vicinity. That shortfall could reach as much as $97,000 per term. We were not consulted on the extension of the shutdown period. If the contractor decides that we need to be closed for longer, that shortfall could double or triple. As things currently stand, the community does not believe that the club will survive the
00:13:00 financial impact of this shutdown. Over a period of two to three terms, or nine months, our recreational members will find another sport, and our competition gymnasts and coaches will put down roots at clubs outside of our LGA. This project was designed to embolden the club, not to end it. But if we don't get this right, that's exactly the risk we run. The good news story of an Olympic-ready training facility becomes the story of the club that didn't survive long enough to see it open. Council will be left holding a brand new, world-class facility with no gymnasts to fill it. Gymnastics and its equipment is technical and carries safety requirements. It would be devastating for that to sit idle given the history and recent success of the club. The last thing we want to do is lose the home-grown talent and expertise it has taken us 35 years
00:14:00 to build, right when opportunities open up in the lead-up to Brisbane 2032. Today, over 420 gymnasts and their families will lose access to the club that's been part of their lives, and in some cases, for generations. With the new facility, our plan is to grow that to over 1,000 gymnasts and be the leading recreational and competitive gymnastics club in Queensland. We may be a community club, but we know with this team, we can achieve this. Already, we are pulling every financial lever available to us to raise funds. We've raised a volunteer levy from our members, and sought sponsorship and donations from the community. To date, we've raised just under $10,000 through these initiatives. That is well short of what we need, and a club-led effort was never going to be enough to absorb a cost of this size. We are a volunteer-led community sporting club. We do not maintain a big balance sheet.
00:15:00 And certainly, we cannot plan for decisions made for us, without us. If the shutdown time frame in the original tender can't be honoured by a Council-selected contractor, our club needs financial support to keep operating during this period, or it will shut down for good. That's the position we're in today. We want to be a community club, but we also need financial support to keep operating during business. And we do want to minimise the financial impact of the shutdown. Hence, what we're asking for from Council has three parts. First, temporary working capital assistance to manage the significant upfront costs of running concurrent, temporary sites. Not a grant, not ongoing funding, but short-term working capital support. Second, greater facilitated access to the contractor, and to senior decision-makers at Council, as well as to senior decision-makers at Council, as well as to senior decision-makers
00:16:00 We've considered in depth what our club needs to ensure it is still standing and ready to grow the day the doors of our new facility opens. Please help us make sure the redevelopment of the Cooroy Gymnastics Club is a legacy story we can celebrate about what our region built, not what it lost. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Frances, Tace and Kirsten. Please remain after the question time. There'll be an adjournment and we'll hook you up with the key staff who can start the conversation about your three objectives. Jacqueline Gray: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Now we have one submission for public question time and the application with two questions.
00:17:00 Applicant Jacqueline Gray for the Missing Wedding Organisation. Councillor Phillips can come back. The topic is the wedding permit fee structure. The speakers are Jacqueline Gray and Melinda Gannon. Jacqueline and Melinda, would you like to come to the lectern? Speaker 6: I'll swipe it. Yeah, that's fine. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Jacqueline Gray: Good morning, councillors, executive staff and Mayor. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Noosa Wedding Organisation and the Noosa Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a collective of Noosa Wedding based businesses and other businesses. My name is Jacqueline Gray. And with me today is Melinda Gannon. I'm a wedding celebrant and also the owner of the Noosa Reloadment Service Business.
7.2 APPLICANT: JACQUELINE GRAY, NOOSA WEDDING ORGANISATION TOPIC: WEDDING PERMIT FEE STRUCTURE SPEAKERS: JACQUELINE GRAY, MELINDA GANNON ¶
00:18:00 Melinda is the owner of First Class Functions, providing wedding styling event and catering services. Our deputation concerns the current wedding permit fee of $799 for an individual wedding for the groves along Noosa Main Beach and $399 for all other beach and park sites. And we question whether this fee complies with the requirements of Noosa Main Beach and Park Sites. Melinda and I, along with many of the business owners we represent today, meet with couples on a regular basis, face-to-face, to assist them in arranging a wedding in our beautiful location. The Noosa Council permit fee, permit terms and conditions, and the no-refund policy attached, are a constant conversation with comments such as, that fee seems heavy. What? Not exclusive use? We've heard about the Noosa tax, but it's worse than we would have imagined.
00:19:00 We can assure you that the Noosa brand is heavily impacted by the fee. With Noosa seen by our visitors as an unwelcoming place to visit. In 2013, a fee for a permit to marry at one of our groves along Main Beach was $159. As of 2026, the fee is $799. An increase of $499. In 2014, the fee was $102.5. In 2024-25, Council issued 150 permits at $629 for Noosa Main Beach area and $105 at $265 for all other areas. Costs recovered for the issue of these permits was therefore $122,175. In 2006-2007, assuming we were to have the same number of permits issued by Council, Council issued the same number of permits issued by Noosa. Council would recover $161,745, an anticipated increase of $40,000 in two years.
00:20:00 This should be concerning for all ratepayers, residents, businesses and councillors. For the purpose of our deputation, we are seeking transparency about how the $799 and $399 fees were calculated. Confirmation that the fee complies with the cost recovery requirements. A review of the wedding permit fee structure to ensure it is lawful, reasonable and economically sustainable for local businesses. A reduction of the fees to be complied with section 97 of the Local Government Act and also to align with other Queensland councils. Within the legislative framework, wedding permit fees are set according to section 97 of the Local Government Act.
00:21:00 The cost recovery fee must not be more than the cost to the Local Government of taking the action for which the fee is charged. This means councils cannot generate profit from permit fees. Fees must reflect the actual cost, not desirability of the location, not market demand, and not revenue objectives. Reference can be made to the decision of the Queensland Ombudsman in 2013. The Ombudsman decision outlined, Councils have a statutory obligation to comply with the requirements of section 97 of the Local Government Act when fixing cost recovery fees. It may be necessary to seek professional advice before fixing a fee. Section 97 states, A cost recovery fee must not be more than the cost to the Local Government of taking the action for which the fee is charged. A cost recovery fee must not be more than the cost to the Local Government of taking the action for which the fee is charged. The Noosa Council Register of Fees states that the fee is charged according to section 97 whereby it is stated,
00:22:00 A cost recovery fee is a fee for an application for the issue or renewal of a licence, permit, registration or other approval under a Local Government Act, an application fee. So what Council actually does is, Council receives a fee for a beach wedding permit. Reading directly from Noosa Council's permit terms and conditions, the person bearing the permit accepts the application fee is a non-refundable fee even in the circumstances where inclement weather affects your ceremony, accepts Council controlled land is on a routine maintenance program and will not be specifically groomed prior to the ceremony. Council does not accept any responsibility for the condition of the area including mowing, maintenance or inclement weather conditions resulting in leaf, branch debris or irresponsible people using the area prior to your booking.
00:23:00 Must ensure all litter is removed at ceremony completion. Accepts that this permit confirms no other bookings for the time and location, however does not guarantee exclusive use of the area and or its facilities. The permit holder must engage with any groups or individuals that may be using the area in a polite and courteous manner. Therefore, for a wedding permit, Council typically undertakes reviewing the online application, checking location availability, confirming compliance with local laws, issuing of the permit and recording the booking. Council does not undertake site inspections, ranger attendance, pre-event cleaning or maintenance, post-event cleaning or maintenance, infrastructure setup, traffic or crowd management, environmental restoration or on-site monitoring. Also, a refund. If the wedding cannot proceed due to rain, to a rain event or illness, the couple have paid $799 for no service other than the cost to Council for issuing the permit.
00:24:00 This would not be tolerated in a business. We accept an additional reasonable fee for the groves along Noosa Main Beach, which were designed especially for weddings. However, it should be a fee that reflects the actual cost to Council to maintain the areas. A beach wedding leaves no imprint, therefore there will be no cost recovery to Council whatsoever other than the issue of the permit. Our cost calculations for the issue of a permit using standard Queensland Council staffing rates. Administrative officer time, 35 minutes. Hourly rate with on costs approximately $55. Total cost $32.08. Plus system overhead $2 to $5. Corporate overhead loading $6 to $10. A realistic lawful cost recovery is therefore $40 to $50 and even doubling this for contingencies results in between $80 and $100.
00:25:00 There is no plausible cost recovery pathway that we can see to either $399 or $799. For a regional comparison. To understand whether Noosaville is reasonable, we looked at neighbouring councils. Suntime Coast Council charge $82 for all locations. Gold Coast Council charge $0 for beach weddings, $134 in a park, $345 for the botanic gardens. Brisbane City Council. Feeds to marry in a park in Brisbane will cost $435.10 for two hour exclusive use of the area with all facilities. Also use of undercover gazebo. We note Noosa permits provides there is no exclusive use of the area. Douglas Shire charge $76 for parks, beaches and reserves with $150 for the ceremonies at their Little Cove location where for $664 you can also hold your reception.
00:26:00 The State Government. A permit for a wedding will be issued by the State Government Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation in our National Government. Noosa National Parks at no cost for up to 40 people. This includes Laguna Lookout, entry to Noosa National Park, Tea Tree Bay, etc. Noosa's fee is almost 10 times higher than the Suntime Coast. Infinitely higher than the Gold Coast. Not aligned with the regional norms. Not supported by service delivery. And not supported by cost recovery evidence. Noosa Council's cost recovery for one wedding permit is therefore 86.6% higher than the total cost recovery. The economic impact on Noosa businesses. The wedding sector contributes millions annually to Noosa's visitor economy. However, the $799 no refund fee is discouraging couples from choosing Noosa.
00:27:00 Redirecting bookings to Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast and other areas. Reducing income for local wedding related and tourism businesses. Creating reputational harm for Noosa. And impacting the Noosa brand as an accessible and welcoming wedding destination. The Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages data shows Noosa weddings have fallen from 781 in 2014 to 563 in 2025. A decline of 218 weddings a year. While Sunshine Coast Council uses its funding of Visit Sunshine Coast to actively attract the wedding market through dedicated destination promotion and events. Such as the Mullaney Wedding Festival Trail. While Tourism Noosa, despite being Council's equivalent publicly funded tourism body. Has provided our local wedding sector with no comparable investment or targeted promotional support. The concern is simple.
00:28:00 Noosa is discouraging one of the most economically valuable and DMP aligned visitor segments we have. An average stay for a single wedding is three to four nights. Including accommodation, wedding expenses, dining, guest activities including golf, fishing, surf lessons etc. Shopping and beauty treatments. Low spend is $2,600 per person. So with a wedding with 50 guests, that is $130,000 per wedding with only 50 guests to our local economy. 200 more would bring an additional $26 million per annum to our visitor, to our Noosa economy. We believe a lawful fee is likely to fall between $40 and $100 based on standard administrative processes for parks and beaches. And a scale of fees for the groves and mechanic garden based on the number of guests in attendance and impact would be appreciated. In closing, the destination management plan is very clear that Noosa does not need more tourism for the sake of volume.
00:29:00 It needs the right kind of tourism. Weddings are exactly that. They are low volume, high value, planned well in advance and deeply connected to place. This is not mass tourism. It is values over volume tourism that directly supports a resilient local economy. Yet at the same time, Noosa is making it harder for couples to choose us by charging a $799 non-refundable ceremony permit with no exclusive use, no ceremony specific servicing and no transparent cost recovery model. Weddings also sit very well with Council's events portfolio as a high value visitor segment that meet all criteria for sustainable events being low peak impact and economically significant. If Council is serious about the DMP and serious about a commitment to the Noosa brand,
00:30:00 then the wedding permit fee needs to be reduced to a fair, transparent, lawful cost recovery amount so Noosa can compete for this valuable market rather than lose it. We are not asking Council to subsidise weddings. We are asking Council to not price Noosa out of a high value, low impact visitor market that the DMP itself says we should be attracting. I listen to the Councillor's budget speeches and support your comments. Councillor Nicola Wilson. Councillor Wilson who stated in her budget speech she would like to see a full review of operations. Councillor Jess Phillips with her support of the latest budget conditional on a commitment from the organisation to undertake a full service review. And Councillor Tom Wegener who looks forward to a full review of the budget fees and charges. And Mayor Frank Wilkie who stated we are always open to reviewing our processes. We value Council's stewardship of our public spaces and we are committed to working constructively with you.
00:31:00 Our goal is simple, a fee structure that is lawful, transparent and supports local businesses while ensuring Council recovers its genuine costs. Thank you all for your time and your consideration. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Ms Gray, thank you Ms Ganner. Director MacGillivray will be available to discuss your deputation in the break. After question time. And we may have some questions for you as well. Thank you. We have one submission for public question time. The application of two questions is from Mrs Susan Dewar. Ms Dewar advised she can't be here today. But she's asked for Councillor Lorentson to read the questions on her behalf. These will be answered by Shaun Walsh, the Director of Infrastructure Services. Councillor Lorentson, could you read the questions please. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. On behalf of Susan Dewar, question one. Three years ago, I, Susan Dewar, first raised concerns about the lack of lighting on the pathway connecting the Yellowood Close and the Tewantin Sports Complex.
8 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
8.1 SUSAN DEWAR ¶
00:32:00 Given this pathway is regularly used by families, children and sporting groups, will Council investigate and apply for available Queensland Government grant funding to install lighting at this location? Mayor Wilkie: Director Walsh. Director Walsh: In Council, the Vice-Chancellor. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I think probably the microphones are over here. Director Walsh. Yeah. Director Walsh: Thank you for the question. Council does directly own and manage public lighting in commonly used public areas such as Noosaville foreshore. Other street and pathway lighting is owned by Energex, though Council does pay the electricity bills. Unfortunately, there is no budget allocation in the twenty-six, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, twenty-seven budget to extend Council's public lighting program. In addition, there is currently no grant program offered by Energex to extend public lighting.
00:33:00 Council will continue to monitor grant programs for available funding. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Shaun. And the second question, Councillor Lorentson. Question two. Councillor Lorentson: Council has advised that an alternative route exists by McKinnon Drive. However, many residents continue to use the access pathway from Yellowood Close because of the lack of public lighting. Council provides direct access to the sporting precinct. What assessment has Council undertaken of the pathway's usage and safety risk, and what criteria would need to be met before lighting is considered? Director Walsh: Council has not undertaken any further assessment of the pathway usage to inform future lighting. The appropriate standard for assessment would be Australian standard, New Zealand standard, 1158.3.1, colon, 2020, lighting for road use. Other criteria will include pedestrian usage data and requests from the local residents
00:34:00 seeking improvements to inform budget allocation. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Director Walsh. We will now have a 15-minute adjournment for the public participation. Applicants to speak with available staff in the chambers. Thank you.
00:51:00 I hear a yes. Yes. OK. Councillor Wegener: I Olympics, yeah. OK. Mayor Wilkie: Welcome back, everybody. We're up to item nine. I'd just like to remind everyone that there is no photography or filming from the gallery as per our standing orders. I'd now like to move a merile minute. It's about disaster recovery funding arrangements, and the resolution is that Council note the
9 MAYORAL MINUTES ¶
00:52:00 receipt of the National Achievement Amendment. Emergency Management Disaster Management Reform Discussion Paper regarding proposed changes to disaster funding arrangements. Delegate to the Mayor to sign the Queensland Government Disaster Funding Petition initiated by the Minister for Local Government and Water, Minister for Fire, Disaster Recovery and Volunteers opposing the proposed changes to the disaster recovery funding arrangements. C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to prepare and submit a formal submission to the National Emergency Management Agency outlining Council's concerns regarding the proposed DRFA changes, the potential impacts on local governments, communities and disaster recovery outcomes across Queensland by the 19th of August, 2026 closing date. Appropriately recognising Queensland's disaster risk profile and support ongoing investment in recovery, resilience and betterment initiatives for local communities. D. Write to the Federal Member for White Bay and Queensland Senators seeking their support to oppose the proposed
00:53:00 DRFA changes and advocate for the retention of equitable and sustainable recovery funding arrangements, highlighting the significant financial burden the changes would place on councils and the potential reduction in recovery and resilience outcomes for disaster affected communities. And E. Prepare a response to LGAQ outlining Council's views for incorporation into a state-wide response by 10th of August, 2026. As background, the National Emergency Management Australia have released this paper following the Federal Government's announcement last month of proposed changes to Australia's disaster recovery funding arrangements. The proposed reforms would replace the current funding arrangements with a flat 50-50 cost-sharing model between the Commonwealth and the states. The Commonwealth has stated that councils will not be directly impacted, modelling undertaken by the Queensland Reconstruction Authority indicates Queensland would
00:54:00 be approximately $713 million worse off during the 25-26 disaster season alone. Queensland currently benefits from a safety net mechanism that increases Commonwealth support to a 75-25% funding split when disaster impacts exceed the state's capacity to respond. Under the proposed reforms, that safeguard would be removed, meaning Queensland would now have no longer receive more than 50% Commonwealth funding, regardless of the scale or severity of the event. These changes come at a time when disaster impacts and recovery costs are escalating rapidly. Queensland disaster recovery expenditure increased from approximately $3 billion between 2016 and 2021 to $6 billion after 2021, with projected costs for the 25-26 period estimated at $17 billion. For Noosa Council, the impacts are tangible. Since the introduction of the current DRFA framework in 2018, Noosa Council has received approximately
00:55:00 $198.2 million in disaster recovery funding under all categories. Under the proposed arrangements, this would have resulted in an additional cost burden of around $27.7 million for the state and council, a cost shift of approximately 22%. The reforms would also significantly reduce support for resilience and betterment initiatives, and enable damaged infrastructure to be rebuilt stronger and more resilient to future disasters. Since 2018, Noosa has delivered three betterment projects at a combined value of $4.9 million, the most recent and most substantial being the realignment of the water main and bridge to Shrivers Road, ensuring water security for the entire region. These programs have delivered substantial long-term benefits to the Noosa community by reducing future disaster risk, improving resilience and ensuring better value for public investment.
00:56:00 So I urge your councils to support the advocacy that we're going to be doing along with other Queensland councils to ensure that councils aren't unfairly saddled and the state aren't unfairly saddled with an extra cost burden when it comes to disaster funding. Thank you. Any discussion? Councillor Mittell. Councillor Lorentson: That's all you, first. You're on your feet. Thank you, Mayor, and I totally, totally support this motion. A month ago at the adoption of this year's budget, I placed on record a concern about exposure to external funding. Of our $84.4 million capital works program, $42.6 million, more than half, depends on grants and subsidies including $29.2 million in recovery works funded entirely by external grants.
00:57:00 At the time I noted that the Commonwealth had signalled its intention to move to a 50-50 disaster recovery funding split and down from the current more generous arrangement and that in a shire like ours, a disaster prone and in a disaster prone state with a fully grant dependent recovery works line we were going to be directly exposed. That assessment is now in front of us and my concerns are no longer hypothetical, they're real. The figures in the background paper provided in the Merrill Minute confirmed the scale of this risk. The concern is also shared well beyond Noosa. Just recently the National General Assembly, the Australian Local Government Association passed a motion calling on the Federal Government to maintain current funding arrangements on the basis that councils should not be left to absorb additional recovery cuts. Elgar's President had framed the test plainly.
00:58:00 He said, will these reforms leave councils better able to recover or simply leave them carry more of a burden? Here in Queensland, LGAQ has already taken a clear position. Its analysis shows that the 50-50 split applied since 2030, it would mean that Queensland would have missed out on more than a billion dollars in betterment funding. It would mean that Queensland would have missed out on more than a billion dollars in betterment funding. Roads, bridges and other infrastructure to a high standard. Councils across the states have joined the campaign and I'm really proud that the Mayor has brought this forward to us because we should too. So happy to support this mayoral minute and again thank the Mayor for bringing this to us. It aligns with the broader push from ALGA and the LGAQ and gives Canberra a very clear quantified picture of what a 50-50 split would mean for a disaster-prone Shire like ours and a state like ours. Again, support the motion in full and thank the Mayor. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson.
00:59:00 Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. I will support this but I actually don't really think it's necessary and I think it's actually a little bit reactionary. It's a disaster management reform discussion paper that is already specifically asking for feedback from state and local governments. There's some really actually positive parts of this paper and it says the new disaster recovery funding framework will ensure Commonwealth disaster recovery funding will flow to impacted communities faster and with less red tape while building on the government's record investment in risk reduction. It does talk about betterment as well as resilience and one of the key changes is actually changing the threshold for a disaster from $240,000 to I think $2.6 million. So make sure that those smaller projects are not taking up so much time in getting them approved. So I actually agree with a lot of what's in here,
01:00:00 but it is already seeking feedback. So for example, after every single section, it says key questions for engagement with states and territories. How would the new event-based activation trigger points work with relevant state territory legislation and all requirements for declaring disaster events in your jurisdiction? So we were already invited to give our feedback. We were invited to give feedback on this paper and therefore I don't think we really needed a minute to do that, but I will support it because we should make a submission. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Other Councillors wish to speak to the minute. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes, I'd like to thank the Mayor for bringing it forward. This is a great opportunity. I think that was a reduction in the red tape, which LGA and combined all levels of government have been working hard on. So I think that addresses that to enable people to access that funding when the disasters strike. They're going to also, it says, introduce standard packages of assistance so that the impacted communities get access
01:01:00 to timely and suitable support. So I think that's really good. I think as with anything, that balance between what is delivered and what we can continue to advocate for is recognisable in the motion today. So I think it's a great opportunity. They also want to introduce resilient infrastructure scheme to support communities to build back better after disaster with funding up to 15% cost shared with jurisdictions. So I think again, it's about finding the balance and of course, always advocating for our community. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Anybody else? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. It's clear that the federal government has a significant role and compared to the miserly amount that currently gets summed in taxation dollars to local government, the federal government has the biggest bill in the UK. But it's also something that we've been aware is going to increasingly be the case
01:02:00 as we go a few years further. We've been talking about this every time we have a disaster that the more frequent, the more severe and more costs of disaster, the less likely it is that we will have the level of support, from state and federal governments, that we currently enjoy. We've heard the figure that we've received recently. So to put that in context, not necessarily about the sort of disaster funds we require, but about the impact of extreme weather events. In 1995, the Australian Insurance Costs Council was 0.2% of GDP. In 2000, it was 0.7%. The last, oh sorry, from 95 to 2000, it was 0.2%. And the last five years, from 2019 to 2024, is more than triple 2.7% of GDP. We found that the extreme weather events
01:03:00 in the 23, 24, cost insurers 2.1. So, Councillor Finzel mentioned building back better. So sure, we need to do this. We need to try and maintain the level of support we're currently getting, and make sure we're clear. Because Queensland, when it comes to disasters from extreme weather events, are significantly higher than all the other states, okay? And we also have to make sure that we're doing our best to make sure we're planning to reduce that risk. And I think we can do that in a number of ways. And one way is by planning our adaptation measures. When we look at the things like the seawall, when we look at a range of opportunities, we need to be open about the fact that yes, we realise the costs are growing. Yes, we want the federal government to continue to play a significant role, but we need, and this is what the Insurance Council says we need to do, is de-risk is the only sustainable way is planning.
01:04:00 So no more harms are built in harm's way. Stronger buildings are able to withstand extreme weather. Great investment in public infrastructure to protect communities and an ongoing programme of fund buybacks with no other mitigation measure exists. That's where we should be focusing. We should be focusing on how we get and reduce the risk in the future and make sure all our planning decisions are looking at what those extreme disaster events are likely to be in the future and how not to increase that risk. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Phillips: Councillor Phillips, yeah. I have a question to the Mayor. Thank you for the Mayor and the witness. Just in relation to authorising the Chief Executive Officer to prepare and submit the formal submission, we had our local disaster management group meeting on the 24th of July, and I was wondering if it would come to that group prior to going to the next steps, and also with, I think it was E, there's also another bit about preparing a response to LGMQ, and I wondered if that would be coming to LGMG
01:05:00 or their, you know, conversation. I think it's important those stakeholders are around the table that they would have consideration to the input. And I'm just wondering if that will happen. Mayor Wilkie: Director of Infrastructure. Director Walsh: Good morning, Councillor Stockwell. That item is listed on the agenda for the Life Existence Management Group for awareness, but this request is for this council to make a submission by the LGMQ Local Government Association of Queensland. Each of those agencies also want to make their own submissions, Mayor Wilkie: but we're all pretty aligned in terms of concerns about the funding levels. Councillor Phillips: So just to clarify, it's only coming to the LGMQ for noting, not for a, asking them for feedback. Director Walsh: We need to be very careful we don't direct, you know, our state agencies to undertake the works, so on the matters of policy and principle. So that's the only constraint, so that's why we're sort of,
01:06:00 you know, tailing it for the next meeting. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. If you have further discussion, put it to the vote those in favour. That's unanimous. We have no notified motions. That brings us to consideration of committee recommendations. General committee recommendations dated 7th of July, 2026. 11.1.1, movement and connection action plan. 11.1.2, GoNUSA report. I would like to. Yes, Councillor Lysa. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. I'd like to move an alternate motion for the GoNUSA report, please. Yes. And if I could just have that on the screen. So, that Council 8 note, the report by the Transport Project Officer to the general meeting dated 7th of July, 2026, regarding the GoNUSA report. B, delegate authority.
10 NOTIFIED MOTIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11 CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 7 JULY 2026 ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.1 MOVEMENT AND CONNECTION ACTION PLAN 2025–2027 ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.2 GO NOOSA REPORT ¶
01:07:00 To the Chief Executive Officer to continue delivery of the GoNUSA program and associated peak period transport initiatives subject to annual budget processes. C, note the temporary repurpose of the car park within the main beach reserve adjacent to the NUSA Head Surf Club as a main beach drop-off zone during the peak Christmas and New Year period to improve safety, traffic circulation and functionality within the precinct. D, endorse a trial of a temporary 15 minute drop-off area on NUSA Parade. Adjacent to Lyons Park during GoNUSA Summer 2026. E, approve the continued use of Lyons Park as overflow paid parking during the 2026-27 Christmas and New Year period, operated by the Tewantin NUSA Lyons Club, with the club to invite and coordinate volunteer involvement from other interested community groups in operating the parking. F, note that any future use of Lyons Park for overflow car parking beyond the 2026-27
01:08:00 Christmas and New Year period will be subject to separate consideration and determination by Council. And G, request that staff deliver alternative transport management by December 2026, including satellite parking, park and ride service and community concierge service. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Just before we go there, do we have an understanding of people in the gallery that there's no photography or filming taken during deliberations? I'd just like to reiterate that. We have a seconder for the motion, please. I have a seconder. Seconder, Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson, you have the floor. Councillor Lorentson: There was a motion put to Council before, and should I say an amendment that was put to Council before to allow overflow car parking at the Lyons Park at the general meeting. It wasn't supported, unfortunately, by a majority.
01:09:00 I brought it back today in the hope that some councillors who did not support it last time may have had a chance to reconsider, given what's been happening just across Council in the last, in the past week. At the general meeting, Council was advised, or was told by some councillors, that removing the Lyons car park would have no real effect on, on our businesses or our community. Again, something very similar happened just recently about the Doonella Bridge traffic arrangement. Last week showed us what assumption costs and when it turns out to be wrong. And we're also, we, Council, doesn't support our small businesses. Running a small business in the Shire carries real weight for the people behind it. Whether they can pay their staff this fortnight,
01:10:00 whether they should order more stock or less. And in some cases, an understanding that a house may be tied up in a business. Council's decisions land directly on those pressures. This is also landing at difficult times. I'm not going to go over the conversation, the argument that I said at the general meeting. So I'm just going to quickly just summarise. The seawall reconstruction's coming, the surf car redevelopment's coming, the broader economy is slowing. And we've heard that from the many, many emails and representations we've had from our business community in Hastings Street. And I heard it on the radio this morning on the ABC. Also important to note from July 1st, 2026, small businesses are also managing payday superannuation. Small business owner explained this to me. It's a change that's going to require super to be paid
01:11:00 on every payday rather than quarterly. Again, adding to existing cashflow and compliance pressures already placed on our small businesses. Council should be mindful of adding to that load unnecessarily. What this motion asks for is really, really modest councillors. 21 days. 21 days out of 300. 365 days a year. 21 days of overflow car parking to support our business community and our residents over the Christmas period. For the remaining 344 days a year, the vast majority of the calendar, Lyons Park remains exactly what it is already. Open space. Any decision about the park's longer term future still comes back to council. And this motion doesn't settle that question today. 21 days is what our business community and residents are asking from us.
01:12:00 347 days is, 44 days is what we're giving back to the green space change. Today, we've got an opportunity to show our business community that we're listening. The people who put us in the seat did not do so on the condition that we get everything right the first time they did so trusting that we would represent them. And that includes being honest. When the evidence and the emails and the pressure tells us that we need to think again about some of our decisions. Respecting that trust means acting on it, not defending a position for the sake of defending it. Leadership is measured by how hard we, it's not measured by how hard we hold a line once we've drawn it. It's measured by whether we're willing to pivot when circumstances change and the evidence is in front of us. There is nothing weak about making a decision, watching what happens, reflecting honestly
01:13:00 and changing course when it's warranted. That's not backing down. That's what bold leadership actually looks like. Digging in because it was the position taken last time, councillors, is not strength. Agility, the willingness to correct course when our community tells us clearly that we've got it wrong, is the leadership that this moment's actually calling us. There is no proven alternative ready to absorb this demand. We've talked about this at the General Park and Ride has been part of transport strategy now for nine years and it remains under 10% capacity. If council wishes to remove an option that's working, the responsible course, in my opinion, is to provide and test a genuine alternative first. A trial, for example, of a one-way traffic loop with a priority bus lane, an option that's been raised year after year after year, would provide that evidence. If a trial demonstrates that there is no proven alternative ready to absorb this demand, that the network can perform without Lions Park, then council can have an informed conversation
01:14:00 with business and community about the park's future, including facing car parking out altogether. That conversation should follow the evidence, not precede it. This motion, councillors, proposes a balanced, evidence-based way forward, support the businesses and the community for the 21 days that matter most. Hand back 344 days of open space to the rest of the year unchanged and then test a genuine alternative before any permanent decision is made. That's not indecision. That's council doing its job properly and listening to its community. Thank you councillor Lorentson. Mayor Wilkie: Remove an amendment where we substitute E for the E that was part of the recommendation that came from the general committee and also removes F.
01:15:00 So remove F. And substitute E for that which was voted on as a recommendation from the general committee. Which is do not proceed with ongoing use of Noosaville, Heads, Lyons, Park Road, Flay Park and Prevail Reasons outlined in the report. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question through the chair please? What's your question? My question is that the amendment is goes against the intent of the alternate motion and shouldn't stand. Mayor Wilkie: It doesn't, it only changes one portion of it. This is a motion about the whole Go Noosa program. This changes one aspect of it and it's entirely consistent with the amendment that you moved as part of the recommendation last week.
01:16:00 Where the motion, the recommendation was that we do not continue and you moved an amendment, which was tested and moved to a new motion. It's not tested and failed that we do continue. So it's entirely consistent. Question? Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you. Where do we have the opportunity to debate number E, approve the continued use before we move on to another amendment? Mayor Wilkie: Well, I'm moving an amendment to that now so you can debate whether you support C or E. It's parking in Lyons Park now, or not, as part of this proposed amendment. So we'll just wait for the wording to be put on the screen.
01:17:00 Councillor Lorentson: Was that remove item F? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Remove item F is that. Yeah, it's the same thing, exact same thing. Speaker 6: Yeah. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: I have a seconder for the amendment, please. Councillor Stockwell, thank you. We just heard that the network does... We don't know whether the network performs without Lions Park. We have ample evidence and experience to show that the network does perform
01:18:00 without the Lions Park being used as car parking. Because that's what happens every school holidays and long weekend. We were told there's no viable alternative. Yet the report clearly shows that we do have the one-way loop bus, which is the viable alternative, which recorded approximately almost 74,500 passenger trips during the Christmas period alone. That was a service that didn't exist when temporary parking at the Lions Park was allowed. At Christmas, all those years ago. That's the equivalent to about 52,500 potential private vehicle trips. This is the viable alternative. The claim that there is no viable alternative is absolutely false. So today is about making an evidence-based decision that will reduce traffic congestion, return a recreation park to families, which will create a better quality experience for residents and visitors to Noosa,
01:19:00 and therefore, ensure the long-term prosperity for the business community and the livability of Noosa. And it will create opportunities for more equitable revenue generating arrangements for community groups. Or, we can make a fear-based decision backed by a false claim that there are no viable alternatives for travelling into Noosa when record numbers are accessing the precinct via the one-way loop bus and other means. And there's been, as we said earlier, there's been some inspiring statements made around this table about not just warming chairs, not doing business as usual, not just supporting the status quo, and always making evidence-based decisions in the best long-term interests of our community. And today, we can demonstrate that. Peak-period traffic congestion in the main beach precinct is the number one problem our residents and business community has asked us to tackle, time and time again, over many years.
01:20:00 We can do this now because we have viable alternatives that are seeing record numbers of people accessing the area by means other than the car. You're still free to drive down there by car. The claim there are no alternatives to overflow parking in one of our most iconic riverside parks is false and totally not supported by the evidence. The free holiday one-way loop bus, which did not exist when overflow parking was introduced, carried approximately 3,000 people. There were only 74,500 passengers during the Christmas period alone, a 65.7% increase on the previous year and a new high. It's equivalent to 52,500 potential private vehicle trips. There are more people than ever getting around on electric bikes and motor scooters. People are still free to drive to the main beach precinct. They get there just as quickly or as slowly as people on the buses. But unlike bus passengers, they spend up to an hour circulating. Remember, cars don't drive.
01:21:00 They don't go to the beach and support our businesses. Visit shops, go to restaurants or support businesses. People do. This is about valuing people over cars. This is about retaining the freedom of choice to drive and park using the hundreds of appropriately marked on-road parks or catch a bus, cycle or walk. Today's decision is not really about a temporary car park. It's about fairness, equity, leadership, and our responsibility to make a difference. We want to make evidence-based decisions in the best long-term interests of the Noosa Shire, and we've faced exactly the same questions and fears before when we made the decision to honour our commitment to discontinue parking in Lyons Park on long weekends and school holidays once COVID ended in the face of exactly the same objections about supporting small businesses. Temporary parking was there to encourage day-to-day visitors, which it did successfully during COVID, but that's over now.
01:22:00 Despite warnings it would kill prosperity and kill off small businesses and no one would visit, removing car parking in the Lyons Park did not reduce the number of people visiting that precinct, but it actually reduced congestion at the Noosa Parade roundabouts, returned a green space to families. The number of people visiting did not drop because more and more are getting there by cars, which is still an incredibly popular area, and buses, and they're still choosing to drive there, and they still can. But now, when people drive down Noosa Hill during school holidays and long weekends, and possibly Christmas now, instead of seeing a sea of cars parked side-by-side in Lyons Park, being backed up in congestion that's caused by the Lyons Parking at the two Noosa Parade roundabouts, they see families playing in open parklands and traffic moves more quickly. It's a much more relaxing site, adds enormously towards making for a more enjoyable experience for everyone. Making sure people come back because the experience is more enjoyable.
01:23:00 Evidence, experience and observations suggest there are just as many people as ever in Noosa during the holiday period. So the evidence before us is compelling. The transport modelling demonstrates that Lyons Park overflow parking does not solve, it adds to congestion, something we're all dedicated to reducing. It shows that Lyons Park is not needed as car parking to enable what seems like record numbers of people accessing the main beach area. Thank you. And for many years, the temporary use of the Lyons Park as overflow parking has delivered positive fundraising outcomes for one worthy organisation. The Tewantin Noosa Lyons Club should be recognised and thanked for its extraordinary contribution to our community. However, we must also acknowledge a simple question of equity. Noosa is home to hundreds of sporting, cultural, environmental, service and community organisations that could do a lot with such funds. The report proposes a fairer and more transparent approach. Where charitable and community organisations can participate through open procurement, expression of interest processes, creating opportunities for many groups rather than just one.
01:24:00 Providing recreational activities better suited to family parkland. Speaker 5: So let us be fair to all community organisations. Mayor Wilkie: Let's protect public space for public use. Let's reduce congestion. Value people over cars. Support the long term prosperity of Noosa businesses. Protect parks for recreation. And have the courage to make a decision that future generations will thank us for. There's never a good time to make a decision like this, Council. It's either it's now or it's never. Certainly not next Christmas with an election looming. Please, Councillors, look at the facts and please support this amendment. Councillor Lorentson: Just some questions through the Chair. Just a couple of things that you've raised and maybe you can give me some clarity. You said that a decision was made to return Lyons Park to green space.
01:25:00 I have in front of me the 2023 16th of March ordinary meeting when Council resolved that any future decision about Lyons Park would involve community consultation. I also recall through my question is when was that decision to return it back to open space made? The fax in front of me says otherwise. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor, as you know, you were part of the debate and the decision that was after COVID ended. We made a resolution that we would return the line that we would end the temporary parking in Lyons Park that was happening during school holidays and long weekends as part of a COVID measure. And we resolved to end our parking at Lyons Park during school holidays and the long weekends. Because COVID was over and the need to attract day drive visitors was no longer needed because visitation to interstate and overseas visitors was resumed.
01:26:00 Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask you, the Chair, or maybe even with Director King-Roylands, is my understanding that this was a raise. I raised it myself that we had made a commitment in the 2023 that we would go back and consult with the community in terms of future use of Lyons Park. And can I ask, to the Director, did we, during the Destination Management Plan, include... Mayor Wilkie: Councillor, I won't allow that question because that's about consultation. We're talking about an amendment to allow Lyons Park to be used for overflow parking or not. Councillor Lorentson: Oh sorry, my question is directed at a statement that you made that a decision was made that we would return Lyons Park voucher of open space. That's... Councillor, I've answered your question. Mayor Wilkie: That was a resolution of Council that car parking at Lyons Park during school holidays and long weekends would return, would end.
01:27:00 And we resolved that it would end. This was in the last term. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: My last question, again, referencing something that you just raised, Mayor. Yes. In terms, there was only one community group that was being advantaged with the car parking, the Tawantinoosa Lyons Club. Just in terms of just correctness or accurateness. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor, if you're going to be rebutting something I said in debate, please reserve that for when you have an opportunity to speak. And you may speak to the amendment now and rebut, as you wish. Sure, I'll do. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Oh, do you want to... Mayor Wilkie: You go ahead. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Just a question back to that. Was there... Has there been formal notification back to the Minister's Department around a resolution of stopping the parking and opening it for just the green space?
01:28:00 Has that process been followed? Director Walsh: Director Walsh? I'll do the chair. As discussed at the general meeting, the process for doing that is undertaking a land management program under the Land Act to allow... I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It is no longer the discretion of the Minister to provide us, you know, the direction. It's actually for us to make a determination once we've followed the appropriate process. There's been no resolution from the Council to prepare a land management plan to actually allow alternative, you know, car parking on our roads. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Councillor Phillips. I have a question. Councillor Phillips. Just in relation to what you said, Mr Mayor. Yeah. You mentioned survey, destination management plan survey. And I'm just wondering... Mayor Wilkie: Sorry. I did not mention the destination management plan. Councillor Phillips: The survey results, the consultation. Mayor Wilkie: I didn't mention that. But you may ask a question of staff if you have a question of staff. But I didn't mention... I didn't mention the destination management plan or survey.
01:29:00 Councillor Phillips: Apologies. I mentioned... You mentioned consultation in your speech. Mayor Wilkie: Only in rebuttal of Councillor Lorentson's question. Okay. Councillor Phillips: I'll propose then. I just want to know whether the destination management plan consultation included specific questions around the use of the land spot. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor... Director Rawlings. Director Rawlings: Morning, Councillors. Through the Chair. Yes. The destination management plan included a specific question in the survey. I'm sorry. The destination management plan included a specific question in the survey about the use of open space. Green space. Open space. And it... I'm happy to get the question up. I don't have it right on me. But I can get it fairly quickly. My recollection is that it asked whether the community supported the use of open space.
01:30:00 Or whether open space should be prioritised for green space and recreation. And it had specifically, for example, the Lions Park at Noosa Heads. So, yes, there was a specific question about that. Councillor Phillips: Follow-up question on that. Because I remember this survey. And when we asked about the examples used, this was raised that it could give community a perception that we were looking at specific examples. And that was why we sort of had the whole discussion about it. Question. So, does the survey reflect the use of open space? And does the survey results give us an actual indication of the Noosa Heads Lions Park? Could you say that it gives us enough to use that survey question to help assist councillors in the debate here? Director Rawlings: Again, I wouldn't mind just taking that on notice.
01:31:00 If you could just give me a few minutes. So, I could actually just get the facts. Rather than trying to do a recollection. If that's okay. Okay. Sure. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Coming back to the land management plan. I'm just wondering what would be the cost for that. And if it was to be considered like a viable alternative to help give voice back to community around the parking. What would be the cost to council to develop the land management plan and the length of time it would take? Mayor Wilkie: Is that a question staff can answer? Can you estimate? Speaker 4: Through the chair. Difficult to quantify the exact cost. What I could do is we did a similar land management plan for the Noosa sports. District sports complex. District sports complex. I could try and work out what the cost for that involved. There was consultation included as part of that.
01:32:00 So, that would incorporate the cost as well to do that. But I can get you some. Take this on notice again. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: I'll speak to the amendment. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Business owners and associations say that losing this parking will negatively impact their businesses. And I believe them. This is not fear-based. It's a real business impact. And we've just had to respond to the absolute worst of the worst of the worst. It's the absolute fear felt by our Tewantin businesses when access to their precinct was impacted by changes in traffic conditions and revenues fell sharply, even within a week. Customers said they would avoid the area for the whole period of disruption. We keep being told that the DMP feedback was that the community supports user paid parking. Yet some councillors now want to take it away when it's for only 21 days.
01:33:00 This is not a now or never decision. We make it every year. We can also make it after we have a parking management plan, when we have data, evidence and alternatives on the table for discussion. This is not a now or whatever decision. It's not fear-based. The businesses say it will impact them, I believe. Mayor Wilkie: I know I won't ask a question of staff. That would be unfair. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'm going to speak to the motion because I do think that we're diverting. I don't think Kim's response is really relevant to the amendment we've got in front of us. I think Councillor Lorentson sort of really dumbed it down to essentially what this is about.
01:34:00 Our obligations. Our obligations as councillors to listen to the people that put us in their seat. We have heard and we've been given a warning. The last week, if we haven't listened, listen councillors. Our small businesses are hurting. Today, again, we have an opportunity to say to our small business communities, we are listening. And we respect the positions that they've trusted us with. We have an opportunity to say to our small business communities, we are listening. To be their voices. This isn't about consultation. This isn't about car parking. This is something more fundamental. That our small businesses need our support. They're asking us for our support. And if we don't listen, you know what's just transpired? It's going to happen again. We will end up being on national papers.
01:35:00 We'll be on the front page of the news. We'll be ABC news. We'll be on the ABC radio. We'll have our small businesses coming to council. Why? Because we won't allow 18, 21 days. And, in fact, I think when I spoke to the businesses, they actually counted 18 days. We're fighting here over 18 days, councillors. We've got an opportunity, again, to do what's right for our residents and our business community. And if we don't listen, you know, we're just saying, we're listening. Director Rawlings: So, as part of phase two consultation, the survey question that was asked was specifically maintain and prioritise public open spaces for recreation use, not car parking. Example, Noosa Heads Lions Park, unless there is an overriding community benefit to do so.
01:36:00 So, 72% support, 20% not support. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Councillor Phillips. I'll speak to it, thank you. Last week, we had 60 plus business owners in tears and incredibly emotional about the impacts of the breach on their businesses. When we just heard the results to the destination management plan around green space, the key part I got from that was the overriding community benefit. And I feel like overriding community benefit directly relates to actually having an economy that is thriving. Those businesses employ people and those people need their income.
01:37:00 Many, many years ago, one of my first jobs was in Hastings Street, and the low period of time was really stressful on those businesses. They would cut out hours, they knew that they depended on the peak times to keep their yearly income, and so I really can't help but feel that not only the overriding community benefit is that the Hastings Street Association do not support this. We do not have a car park. We have a car park management plan to give us enough indication and direction as to what other resolutions we have, and unless cars, sorry to quote the mayor, cars don't shop or go to the beach unless we now have driverless cars, those cars have people in them which do get out of the car and go and shop and use the beach. So I did see the LA, in LA when I was there they had driverless cars, but I don't believe they have that.
01:38:00 So people get out of those cars and they go and they put money into our economy, which means businesses can employ staff, young people out of school that have their first job down Hastings Street. They absolutely love it. It's thriving. The last thing I want to do is impact those businesses based on a decision we are making today without other things coming through that will help us support other alternate methods that we spoke about in the discussion. And I think that's what we need to do in the general meeting, which I'll be looking forward to seeing occur, and then maybe one day, as I had mentioned, I will fully support this in the future when we have methods that are working. We don't have that yet. So we're not there. Councillor Finzel: Thanks. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question to staff. When we had a lot of conversation today around viable alternatives, when we talk about congestion and connectivity, my question is, there was a feasibility study done some time back, I believe there is a plan underway for a boardwalk from the Lyons Park up over the hill.
01:39:00 I'm just wondering where that is currently sitting, and that is my question to the staff or the CWDA. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Director Walsh: Thank you for the question, Councillor. There is a TMR-approved grant for a design for a pathway to vastly improve the footpath from Noosa Junction over to Noosa Heads. We're in the final throes of finalising that design, and we're due to give the Councillor up that. That would give us a shovel-beating project to achieve future funding. We're also dealing with some assets in that location which are in poor condition, that is the boardwalk, as you go down the hill. Which is due for renewal, so there's actually base funding that we can actually start to look at that. The objectives of that pathway is actually to do as much as possible to achieve a wider pathway to make it much more convenient for people to walk,
01:40:00 as well as a great accessible pathway with accessibility standards. Part of the overall design also deals with bike traffic to a much better degree as well. So I look forward to providing an update to Councillor Zilmich. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Let's have one more question to the CEO. Has there been an economic assessment done on the impact of haste? I'm not sure if you're talking about the business of the car park. Mayor Wilkie: No, not at all. Councillor Stockwell. I'll speak. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to fundamentally disagree with the economic rationale proposed by those who don't support the amendment. Fundamentally. Every resident knows the number one reason you don't go to Hastings Street during peak periods is congestion. Thank you. We've been told very clearly the Lyons Park parking contributes to congestion.
01:41:00 We've been told that I think it was 250 car parks, majority for the biggest, a lot of them three to four hours. So one car park might turn over twice, three times a day. We've also heard there's 14 and a half hours. I think there's about 10,000, I think, vehicles entering that precinct. And then we hear arguments that it's the same as Tewantin losing 10,000 out of the 20,000 vehicle daily traffic on the bridge. I'm sorry, Councillor, that's opportunistic. There's no nexus. Certainly the current economic conditions I would argue with. It's not on an upward trend. But to suggest that maintaining business as usual is in the economic balance, which is the benefit of our retail sector, can be challenged simply on the basis that it is not going to address the primary cause by many locals and businesses don't go down and spend their money in the precinct.
01:42:00 And the longer we put off that step to reduce congestion, the more the likely embedded nature of that problem. Our aim, if we were to look at local economic development, would be to increase the number of people down there enjoying themselves and spending money. I would argue that a well-organised, attractive event for locals and visitors in the Lions Park would attract more people, which would start to change the thinking of locals who avoid it during the peak period to say let's take the kids down, because there's something to do with it. So let's not be linear in our thinking that it's worked up till now, it's a hard time, we have to keep it like it is or it might affect the business.
01:43:00 Let's be more innovative. Let's be more thinking about how do we use that space to improve the economic performance? How do we use that space to improve the experience of going down there and to exemplify what is within our destination management plan? So to me, that's what it is. There is risk associated with changing anything, but there's more risk for not doing anything. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Anyway, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: I like the beach and those 21 days I like to go to the beach. I don't like congestion and I wouldn't go to the beach in the middle of the day if it wasn't for the loop bus. I just simply wouldn't go. Because I'm not going to go. I know what it's like. You look at the cameras. And so seeing that, that's the problem. GoNUSA, our NUSA Council's response has been the loop bus in the entire walking and cycling strategy in the GoNUSA program.
01:44:00 And so actually the loop bus opens the door for me because when I would go to the beach in the middle of the day, you know that the Lions Park is going to be full anyway. And there's a 2000 car parks out there for me to go down there, park in my car, hop on the bus, air conditioned bus, have a chat with people, which I do. And a problem with going taking the bus is the congestion. And there's still that congestion. And as the report clearly says that the congestion is largely or partially caused by the Lions Park parking. And so we have a wonderful walking and cycling strategy. And we can follow this. And I'm willing to follow it because I'm down there. I know I can drive my car down and sit in that traffic. Or I can hop on the loop bus. We have to support one or the other. Do we follow congestion and doing the same old thing? Or do we follow the GoNUSA program?
01:45:00 And I think this is a pivotal moment that my experience clearly shows that I am going to go down there with my friends as I did multiple times last Christmas, hop on the bus, spend money at the surf club, loving a beer, overlooking the beach. Or I just wouldn't go. And I think there's a lot of people that are in my shoes that live in the hinterland. It's the residents. I mean, the businesses, yes, are important. But I think that having residents enjoying the beach, going to the surf club, going to Noosa longboards, going to the shops down there is actually beneficial. It makes it better for the Noosa residents. So I support the amendment. Councillor Phillips: I have another question, thanks to Theo. Just in relation to not having the economic assessment, if something similar to the first week at Christmas, Hastings Street Association and businesses comments in chamber to loss, they are seeing a decrease in their revenue.
01:46:00 Thank you. What's the solution? Like we obviously were able to quickly do Doonella Bridge. How would we react to that? Because we don't have the economic assessment. I'm just going with listening to that. I've been around that. I'm just wondering what will we do as a council if that's what happens? Speaker 2: Through the Chair, thank you for the question. I think it's a difficult question. The issue with the bridge was it's an operational exercise. So that was something that we had options and we took one option and it was my decision as officers to take the decision to change that. So we're able to do that. This is a resolution of the council. So I think that we monitor it. If we felt that there was a need to do anything, then we would have to bring it back to council for some level of change. I'm not sure exactly what that would look like and when because it's over Christmas time as well. So it's a difficult thing to say definitively.
01:47:00 But that would be my assessment right now. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. A question to the CEO. Council has all received an email from Tourism Noosa. Just recently, we've endorsed Tourism Noosa as a volunteer. They have been involved into our destination management organisation. They have explicitly expressed support for the overflow car parking. Given that the council funded and are in charge of managing the destination, I'm sort of just... Question. My question to you is how important is their position in this space? Speaker 2: I'm sorry. So whilst they're funded by us as Tourism Noosa, they're also under our guidance in terms of what we expect from them for the funding. But in terms of the decision, it's still your decision. There's a... I'm sure you've had a number of different groups and organisations and people contact
01:48:00 you and give you their opinion or their position on this. And Tourism Noosa is no different. They are a body. They're funded by us, but... To a large degree. To a large degree. But they, you know, ultimately, they can put that position forward, but it still comes down to you as a group. That's what this is all about, is to make the decision. You've got the recommendation from the officers based on our feedback and our understanding. That's for you to then debate and decide whether you want to take that up or not or change it. That's the position you're at. And I hope that that goes exactly with terms of other people's opinions. And you need to take all that into consideration and make a decision. Thank you, Mr CEO. Mayor Wilkie: I'm speaking. Thank you now. I have a few questions. The Chair is standing. Please. To help answer some questions that have been raised, I'll ask the Director of Infrastructure.
01:49:00 Director of Infrastructure, can you give us your assessment of how the bridge works have impacted Tewantin and how the proposed changes to the parking arrangements at Lyons Park are likely to impact the precinct down at Hastings Street? Director Walsh: Firstly, the question of economic impact on Tewantin, I need to also refer to the Director of Economic Development, which is Steve Rawlings. So, first of all, economic impact is measured over a period of time. Not just days. So, I think that that question of economic impact on Tewantin is too early to actually make a conclusion on. Antidotal feedback we've received in recent days is that trade levels have affected normal and things are consciously volatile. So, as a result of communications. So, part-time, we've set up a communication line with the Tewantin business community to actually directly get that feedback, directly monitor it over Tewantin.
01:50:00 In terms of the Director of Infrastructure, can you add to that? So, in terms of economic impact on Hastings Street, I think we have to look at relatively, you know, it's 14,000 vehicles a day during peak periods visit that precinct. The overflow parking at peak provides capacity for children to get additional vehicles. So, I don't think that, you know, we need to look at the percentage of loss of that car parking, you know, whether it has an economic impact. And I think we also can also start exploring the economic benefit because, as we discussed at General Committee and as included in the report, by putting all our resources into the overplayed car parking in St. Lyons Park, we're actually not putting enough resources into other satellite and parking lot locations where we have hundreds of car parking spaces. And we would like to actually focus our resources in actually promoting those alternative car parking locations and actually see how many people we actually keep using those spaces and actually come into the precincts. So, I think we can look at the generalization of the car parking spaces. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Shaun.
01:51:00 Could you also compare the impact the Bridge Works has had on restricting vehicle access to Tewantin as compared to any, are any restrictions proposed in terms of vehicle access for Hastings Street? Director Walsh: We're not proposing any lane closures on the main roads. We're proposing this is during those times. So, I think that answers the question. So, the key point point about the report presented at the General Committee is that the key issue Director Walsh: is actually congestion at Noosaville, the entrance to the east St Lyons Park, which has created delays. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I have a question. When we're talking about viable alternatives, where are we at in terms of a dedicated lane
01:52:00 Well I think it is in turn I think it's relevant when we're exploring like these viable options has it been costed to address the congestion by moving people into the precinct via the bus being considered as a viable option Mr Mayor which you actually quoted earlier today when you spoke so how can we value out even further as a person coming into the precinct on a bus and I'm lined up behind the congestion it's not going to make my trip any more efficient or in my opinion motivate me to get on the bus so my question is in terms of viable alternatives have we expended the time and the energy to explore a dedicated lane for the bus
01:53:00 Director Walsh: Thank you for the question councillor. An infunded initiative last financial year was the exploration of the Corrigan bus lanes in Monway Lips. We've actually recently received the outcomes of that investigation and as pointed out in the general meeting we're looking forward to presenting that to councillors in the near future. I think it's important though to note that we have had a significant increase in usage of the bus you know particularly the 65 in terms of the 70 per cent increase. We've had a significant increase in use of the bus which points out the success of other alternatives. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a point of order. Councillor Lorentson made an assertion about the letter and its contents from Tourism Noosa. The assertion was that in certain terms that I don't think is I've just had a chance to read the letter I think it was misrepresenting what was in the letter.
01:54:00 The letter clearly talks about the parking during peak periods but it doesn't make the assertion that Councillor Lorentson did. It said we encourage council to ensure any transition away from lines parked is informed by demonstrated success robust performance data and evidence replacement transport solutions are functioning effectively during peak periods. It talks about another thing. It's also it's signed by the chief executive officer. I have asked him. This is my lady board position. It was just a letter. But I do think it's important that the assertions that they in the terms of Councillor Lorentson put it, which was much more that they oppose what was proposed to many of them is not accurate and therefore should be withdrawn. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you for clarifying. Councillor Stockwell will leave both statements to stand and councillors can make their own lines up. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I've got the letter in front of me and I'm happy to withdraw but I will say I've got it in front of me that my understanding of the letter
01:55:00 and the intent behind the letter is until a proven alternative is found that there was concerns about removing the lines parked. So I would like to table that. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Can I just ask whether it's appropriate to read out a letter from an individual in terms of confidentiality? Mayor Wilkie: Well I guess it's, I'm allowing it because it's from an industry group. We have received letters in support from private individuals which we won't be reading out. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment before I close? Yes. Councillors, we're where we're at last week. Nothing has changed. I would also like to say to draw parallels between Council's operational decision to repair a bridge which has restricted access to Tewantin and had an impact is
01:56:00 nothing similar. There is no comparison to the proposal to return green space to the community in Hastings Street. There is no suggestion that Council is looking at restricting vehicle access to Hastings Street. And any inference that Council is doing that by likening it to the Doonella Street Bridge Works is misleading. And of course, we're all mindful of small businesses and we want to do what's required to support them in every regard. And in fact, we hear from the business community and residents that they want Council to tackle one of the biggest disincentives for people accessing Hastings Street, and that is traffic congestion. I feel duty bound to do something about that at every opportunity. And when we have evidence, we need to do something about that.
01:57:00 I will take that at every opportunity. By improving the experience of driving down to Hastings Street, unimpeded by traffic congestion,
01:58:00 and once you get there, you're not looking at wall-to-wall cars on the road or in the green space, we are improving the experience for residents and visitors. We are increasing the likelihood that visitors and residents and customers will want to come back to that precinct. We are removing the disincentive of congestion. And feeling overwhelmed by the hustle and bustle of what's meant to be a relaxing experience. We're removing that. So increasing the likelihood that the long-term prosperity of that precinct is preserved and given every opportunity to prosper and thrive. Councillors, we've done this before. Faced the same objections before. We were told small business would be damaged. If we removed car parking from the Lions Park during school holidays and long weekends after COVID. We weighed up those objections and made an evidence-based decision.
01:59:00 And what happened? More people than ever are accessing that precinct by other means now because of the one-way loop bus, a viable alternative. And the... And the attractiveness of that precinct is part of the attraction. Less traffic congestion during school holidays and long weekends. More green space, a more relaxing experience, better alternatives to get down there. You can still drive. That's why people keep coming back. That's what we can do today. Imagine the same thing, except for Christmas periods and also finding more equitable ways in which we can involve the Lions Park, the Lions Club, in meeting and greeting people as they access the Surf Club drop-off area.
02:00:00 We made an evidence-based decision which reduced traffic congestion at the Hastings Street roundabout by converting parking in the Surf Club car park from 42 car parks down to spaces for people with disabilities and the lifeguards. And turned the rest of it into a drop-off zone, so more people are actually accessing the precinct. There's less congestion on the Hastings Street roundabout because of these smart initiatives, which the Hastings Street Association have said they love and is working well. Removing congestion during the school holidays and the long weekends by converting the Lions Park has also created a similar experience, positive experience. Let's extend the term. In the Christmas period, councillors, this is a decision about looking at the evidence, looking at our experience of where we've done this before, seeing how well it has worked.
02:01:00 There wasn't a big kickback or protest or a gallery full of Hastings Street traders once we reversed the decision that we brought in on COVID to allow people to come back. We're also looking at the fact that a lot of our parking in Lions Park during school holidays and long weekends, just as many people as ever are wanting to get down there. Perhaps even more because of the viable alternatives that exist. To say there aren't viable alternatives is not true. We know it's not true. We're not taking away the right to people to access it by the vehicle. This is about freedom of choice, retaining the freedom for everyone to choose how they get down there. And I appreciate that councillors are under a lot of pressure here. We're all doing this for whatever, whichever way we go, we're doing it for the right reasons. We want to ensure the long term prosperity of our community and the livability of our
02:02:00 community. And that means the long term support for the businesses down there, but it's by a less direct means, by ensuring the attractiveness of it and the quality of the experience, we can ensure the long term prosperity of that precinct and also remove the disincentives that prevent people from going down there, which is traffic congestion and a hectic experience. We've done it during school holidays and long weekends, let's extend it to the Christmas period councillors. I implore you, please support this amendment for the long term prosperity and benefit for the Noosa Shire and its businesses and its residents. I'll put the amendment in the Q&A. And I'll put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Wegener, Stockwell, Wilkie. Those against? Lawrenceon, Phillips, Finzel and Wilson. The amendment is lost. We now go back to the original motion, to which only Councillor Lorentson has spoken.
02:03:00 Now the councillors wish to speak. Councillor Finzel: Can I test an amendment? Mayor Wilkie: Yes, you may. Councillor Finzel: Is this the point to do that now? Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Cathy, can you bring that one up for me? I'm just wondering if I should make something additional. If we want to take it back to the point to support the councillor's amendment, where will we add that in?
02:04:00 Mayor Wilkie: Well, this would add on to the original motion. The old motion. So it wouldn't detract from the intent of the original motion. So would you care to read that out, councillor? Yes, of course. Okay. Councillor Finzel: I'd like to read the amendment. H. Delegate the CEO to establish a strategic Noosa Lions Park advisory group to collaborate with key stakeholders and relevant council staff to develop recommendations to inform decisions for the future of the park. Thank you for the benefit of the community during peak periods to consider viable alternative options. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson. I'll second. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson. Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you.
02:05:00 Look, the reason I'd like to bring this for debate today is to consider how we can broaden this conversation out and continue the conversation, which in my opinion, after speaking to people since our last meeting, noting that I voted against, I voted for the recommendation of the staff, I've since gone back now to re-look at that. And I feel that, you know, as a leader, it is our job to contribute in promoting solutions that, you know, promote all of our people. So we've heard a lot today about the viable alternatives. And I think we're getting there. I think we can all agree that we are moving slowly towards that. I feel that we've been a little premature in saying, let's just close the park. I think we need to spend a little more time speaking with the key stakeholders. So after I spoke to them over the last couple of days, you know, the lines have requested they'd like to perhaps have their, like,
02:06:00 a more detailed survey that, you know, answers some of the questions that, you know, they may have that they feel would be able to bring further conversation into those decisions around that. We've heard today that there are alternative, good alternative viable solutions that have not been completely worked through. I feel we could still do some more work. We've heard about the land management. We've heard about the boardwalk replacement. I'm raising now an alternative for an advisory group. Specifically bringing key stakeholders together and work to continue the conversations so that we bring a balance where every voice is valued. At the moment, I feel that some voices in our community feel that that has been prematurely halted. We can look at a procurement process. I haven't heard us do further discussion around that when we talk about, like, equity for groups who can contribute to the charitable giving process.
02:07:00 How can we look at that to make other viable processes to give other groups opportunity to participate, just even outside of the volunteering, but also equity across the Shire? You know, it could be maybe once a year you go through the procurement process or whatever. I think there's still opportunities for conversations. We looked at a viable alternative to look at the dedicated priority landscape. I think there's still further conversations to just cut off the use, like, cut it off now, is a little premature. I think our roles as leaders and to be effective relies on our capacity to go back and listen. For my own personal interest, I had to go back and rigorously look at my decision on the last meeting.
02:08:00 And I thank Councillor Lorentson for bringing it back to the debate, because I think the conversation still needs to be continued. We've heard from our community. We've heard that we need to have further discussions. In this role, our ultimate goal, I believe, is to create positive social impact for others and our community. I often talk about how do our beneficiaries benefit from the decisions we make at this table? I often talk about how do our beneficiaries benefit from the decisions we make at this table? I believe further conversations will help inform that decision and bring about a balance. I believe further conversations will help inform that decision and bring about a balance. I think we need greater collaboration, which is why I've put forward this motion for consideration, so that we can show that we work effectively with others. I think we need greater collaboration, which is why I've put forward this motion for consideration, so that we can show that we work effectively with others.
02:09:00 To get an advisory group together and talk about the intricacies of the lines parking. Back in the day, I believe back in 2021, I could have that wrong, but I believe it was back then, there was a transport strategy group. Some of these things that we've discussed today were on the table. Some of them haven't been progressed where the voice of the people feel it like we still need to explore more viable options before cutting off the use of the park. So I really call out to councillors around the table today to support this amendment, which brings those voices together back to the table. To be able to work with the council staff. And the key stakeholders to keep having the conversations.
02:10:00 In terms of the broader transport issues that is Shire wide. You know, maybe there's a good opportunity to bring business leaders together to continue those conversations because we know that we're going to have impacts with congestion from the hinterland. You know, we've got infrastructure works going on up there, right through to the coast when we look at the rock wall and things going on down there. What congestion across the Shire is going to be huge around this decision and for the whole of our rest of this term and beyond. So I implore you today to consider this, that we can continue the conversation while we work gradually towards growing these viable alternative options, which have been implemented, but more work, in my opinion, continues to be undertaken. Thank you for your time. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: I'll seek to support Councillor Finzel bringing this amendment.
02:11:00 Thank you very much. I really appreciate that you are also trying to find some commonality around the table. So I feel like sometimes I have a little bit of naivety when I became a councillor around things like this because I sort of assumed they would be done and seeing that as an amendment, it might be that staff do it. But I do think that there's a really big piece of what I sort of thought the role would entail, which is sitting with community groups of all across the Shire, actually bringing them on a journey, and I felt that when I saw this, I was like, oh, yeah, this is exactly what I sort of assumed would be business as usual. So thank you for that. I also thought that it would be a good opportunity to speak about the fact that at the general meeting. I made a really clear point that one day I would really hope I'm standing here and seeing that return to green space, because I think that we can agree that that's probably where the direction has to happen, but I'm with you, we just haven't got the investment in the one-way loop yet, we haven't invested in the other alternatives to sort of see them give some traction, so I hope that getting people at a table that have great ideas, and we saw that recently where the business community have really good solutions for us, I think that's going to be a really good opportunity for us
02:12:00 I do hope that they can be part of the conversation, and then what will happen is when we do make that decision, they will actually celebrate with us, and it'll build that trust, because that's what we're lacking right now, we're sort of coming in and we're making decisions, and I think that any opportunity where we can sit together with our community and actually hear what's happening on the ground, like how many times now have we heard that we're just sort of not hearing that real-life impact that some of the decisions have had. we're making, so any time we can sit with any of our stakeholders, then I welcome it, and yeah, that's, thank you again.
02:13:00 Mayor Wilkie: Question of staff, could you confirm that council meets with key stakeholders, the Lions Club and the Haitian Association regarding the uses of the Lions Park? Are you doing that already? Director Walsh: We certainly do meet with the Lions Park and also the Haitian Street Association, you know, on a regular basis, you know, it's not structured to the extent that we set up an advisory group. I think if council did establish an advisory group, we'd have to put the call out to other stakeholders who might be interested in open space usage in the distance. Mayor Wilkie: So, question to Councillor Finzel, who beyond the Haitian Street Association and the Lions Park would you envisage being qualified as a key stakeholder for this? Councillor Finzel: Well, I haven't actually specifically targeted particular groups, but I feel if we put that opportunity out, that I'm sure people, once the invitation is out, will put their hand up and be willing to participate.
02:14:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Council Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Okay. Ask a question to confirm as well, please, through the chair. While council may already meet with Haitian Street Business Association and the Lions Club, are they ever in the room at the same time? Director Walsh: Thank you for the question. I can't recollect that, but we have an excellent working relationship with both groups and have no problems with them meeting together. I referenced to the general committee how well we work with the Lions Club and they're very amenable to meetings on any topic. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'll support the amendment. I think if we are going down this path, it is important to get a broader perspective. Thank you. Residents from the Noosa Heads area are the primary stakeholders. There's no question about it. The other two groups are not.
02:15:00 They are in terms of car parking, but that's not the primary use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park. So it's really important that residents have a voice on this. However, I've got no problem with having further consultation and trying to come up with an agreed plan. There's lots of proposals that are going to come into this area. And it might be good. We already have one steering group that's working on the pathway up the hill. And you can perhaps have a look at that membership body as a group that could transform. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. I'm happy to support Councillor Finzel. I think it's a really good addition to the alternate motion. Probably what I want to speak about is that the destination management plan. There was a question about Lions Park. And as we heard before with Director Kim Rawlings, is that the outcome of that extensive consultation process was that we needed to prove or demonstrate community benefit and need.
02:16:00 So I think that involving key stakeholders, including the Little Cove Association, and those that live in the precinct around Lions Park, Noosa Heads, is a really important addition. I would also like to see as part of key stakeholders, our surfing community, who also should be part of the, in my opinion, part of the stakeholder reference group. I think this will also help us, you know, when we come to the same argument as we have for the last six years that I've been in council, when we come to decide future use, at least we can have an informed decision.
02:17:00 This is going to add a broader perspective to the conversation. So I thank you for bringing this to the table. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: While we're speaking of stakeholders, you know, we both live in the hinterland. And, you know, I think that we're actually really key stakeholders. As well, because we are definitely influenced and affected by congestion. And if the Lions Park adds to that congestion, then we, you know, should be in the stakeholders as well, because our decisions to drive in are largely dependent upon how the congestion, if it's a beautiful summer day or, and there's lots and lots of people down there, our mental, our freedom to go to the best beach in the southern hemisphere, is definitely influenced by the amount of congestion. So we are, we should be stakeholders as well.
02:18:00 And, and that's where, yeah, I'll leave you with that. Mayor Wilkie: I'll speak in support of it. Understanding that key stakeholders will extend beyond the Hastings Street Association and the Noosa Lions Club, because understanding that, of course, they were the key stakeholders. And the primary stakeholders, there's very little incentive for them to actually change their position over time. But I'm heartened to hear comments around the table that the eventual use of the Lions Park will not be for car parking. But councillors are wanting a more collaborative process to get to that destination. And I think the key stakeholders round table, or whatever form it may take, is the right way. And if I understand correctly, the community consultation that was done as part of the DMP showed over 70% support, or strongly support, in favour of keeping green spaces for recreational uses and not car parking,
02:19:00 unless there was an overriding community benefit. So the DMP consultation did support the previous amendment. But I accept the decision of the group. And that's not going to be happening this Christmas anyway. But this is a possible way forward towards that eventual outcome. So I'll support the amendment. Thank you. Councillor Finzel, do you wish to close? Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for your support around the table. I do hope that by widening this out, it brings further conversation into the space and helps us move forward and bringing everybody with us. You know, as leaders, you know, it takes sustained effort to achieve positive change. You know, I think it can't happen overnight. It takes real effort. It's like, you know, we're like an athlete, and we've got to, like, just keep exercising that muscle to actually keep going
02:20:00 and exploring, you know, alternatives and different ways of bringing our community along, different ways of measuring how people's voices are heard. Always creating those opportunities to broaden it out, to bring as many people as we can along the journey and around the table. So hopefully the support around the table for this amendment continues to bring us all along the journey. And it is about those connections with each other to our space and our identity. We talk about having, you know, one of the best beaches in the eastern board. Like, you know, we want to make sure that everybody can get there and enjoy that and really flourish in our space. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. I'll put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. That now becomes part of the motion and to which only Councillor Lorentson has spoken. So, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a procedural motion. Cathy, I have emailed it. Have you seen that?
02:21:00 Can you bring it up? Yeah, a little bit. That the matter be deferred to the August ordinary meeting in order for the CEO to receive advice as to whether the motion in front of us is in order, considering its potential conflict with the Land Act in that it proposes to proceed with an inconsistent use in the absence of a land management plan. Councillor Lorentson: A question to the Chair. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Procedural motion of a specific process. Yeah. I think we have to follow it. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. We'll have a seconder for that. Councillor Finzel: Happy to second for debate. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We have been advised that since the last time we considered this, the responsibility for the decision has been changed from the Minister to Council. Speaker 6: That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We've been also advised that for Council to approve inconsistent use, it requires a land management plan.
02:22:00 I am unaware whether those amendments gave Council any broader discretion to make a decision contrary to that requirement. I don't think it's reasonable to have that matter determined. If it proceeds as is and it's considered under the Act that Council hasn't got the ability just to improve an inconsistent use, then the motion could be considered after borrowers and staff couldn't work on it anyway. So I do think it's prudent to get that advice, and I do think it is specialist legal advice. Therefore, I don't think it's something we should be looking at today. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor, do you have any questions or comments? Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Could we deal with that by having a subject to? Am I muted? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm not going to. A procedural motion has a decision to be made. I'm not going to answer that question because it's a hypothetical.
02:23:00 I think that's the issue we have to deal with. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 6: Can we take an adjournment to discuss the process? Mayor Wilkie: Well, you've asked for an adjournment to discuss it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We're very close to 12.30 anyway. That's one. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: So through you, Chair, can I have Councillor Wilson's question answered? If the procedural motion falls, can we raise an amendment? Yes. The decision today is subject to support or subject to advice from the Minister in terms of whether there is any conflict, potential conflict with the Land Act. Speaker 2: Well, there's an ability to do an amendment if this falls. Mayor Wilkie: If this falls, you can do an amendment. Thank you very much. Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Mayor Wilkie: Can I just make a correction that whether the motion in front of us is in order, there's two ins there, considering there's a potential conflict with the Land Act.
02:24:00 Speaker 6: That was my problem. Any other system is good as well. Sorry about that. Just a comment. Yep. Mayor Wilkie: Look, Councillors, we've had... Situations like this about getting legal advice on issues over the last few months where items have been deferred while proper legal advice is obtained. If Councillors are happy, we'll take an adjournment now and get some advice from our staff. If you support that, we can come back better informed. We'll make a decision on this procedural motion after an adjournment.
02:25:00 How do you feel about that? Councillor Lorentson: Just through the Chair, I'm not sure what sort of advice we're seeking. Is this through our legal counsellor? Mayor Wilkie: Well, we have a governance officer in the room. I move that we have an adjournment and we can discuss this thoroughly and come back. All better informed about which way we'd like to go. And it's about time for the break anyway. So with your permission, Councillors, I'll call an adjournment for half an hour. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you.
02:58:00 Welcome back everybody. We re-adjourn at 12.59. We have an item up before us, a procedural motion that the matter be deferred to the ordinary meeting in August in order for the CEO to receive advice as to whether the motion in front of us is in order, considering its potential conflict with the Land Act in that it proposes to proceed with an inconsistent use in the absence of
02:59:00 Speaker 4: a land management plan. We have Director MacGillivray to give us some preliminary advice which may help inform us on which way we go today. Thank you councillors, through the chair. I've just got some information and this has come directly from some information we've received to the state but also importantly there were some guidelines the state has prepared. Recently and post changes to the Land Act in 2025. So these guidelines are basically to assist local governments and other statutory bodies where they're managing actions that are consistent or inconsistent with the purpose of the Land Act. So just to give you a bit of a run through in relation to the question and here's a little bit of background information. So the trustee may find a proposed action trustee lease or permit is inconsistent with the purpose of the land and the land that we're talking in and reference is
03:00:00 for recreational purposes. We need to prepare a land management plan to undertake that where there is an inconsistent use. And we have previous advice from the state and prior to the change of the Land Act we were applying to the state directly for approval noting the inconsistency of the designation. To address that and looking forward it would be our advice that a land management plan is the most appropriate tool to outline in the public interest and I will just touch on the key elements of that so everyone is aware. So in doing so in preparing a land management plan the trustee is to consider how with an action or lease would diminish the purpose of the trust land or adversely affect the public interest. Diminishing the purpose is also relevant to address when preparing a management plan for inconsistent permits or actions. Trustees have flexibility in the form and with the trustee content and levels of detail provided in the management plan or amend existing
03:01:00 management plans. To give you some input the management plan needs to include the following to meet the minimum requirements of the Act. Clearly identify any inconsistent action trustee lease or subject to the management plan. Identify potential impacts of the inconsistent use for the purpose of the trust land. State how the inconsistent action would not diminish the purpose of the trust land and then state how the action would not adversely affect the public interest. So the action also needs to comply with the management plan that gets developed. It is up to the trustee to adequately consider both the public interest and where the proposed action would adversely impact on the public interest including where the consultation with land users, stakeholders and the broader community is needed for the nature of the proposal and the form the consultation would take. If the action cannot manage or avoid adverse impacts in the public interest
03:02:00 Mayor Wilkie: it is unlikely that it would satisfy the Act requirements. Hopefully that gives councillors a bit of an understanding of the process and what's involved. So your advice your advice is that if we decide to proceed with this particular motion that a land management plan is the appropriate way to go to justify an inconsistent use of that parcel. Through the Chair yes I agree that's the most appropriate process to follow. Speaker 4: To give certainty and clear understandings and compliance with the Act. Could you outline what process to get a land management plan done involves and potential costs? Through the Chair I'm actually just as per a previous question on notice I took I'm just trying to find out some recent costs we council did undertake a similar land management plan for the Noosa district sports
03:03:00 park that was in 2023 so I was just trying to get an idea that did involve public consultation as well and then involved an activity where there was a potential commercial use occurring on that site there so I will get some costing and report back to council on I don't have that right now. In terms of time frames I would estimate potentially would need around six months I guess to include a public consultation process and obviously prepare the plan and go out to consultation with the community around that particular issue. And you'd need taking on notice how much the costs would be impacting budget? Yes through the Chair yeah there will potentially need to be some budget or alternatively we could seek to undertake that activity in house that would just take some time and potentially move staff off from other current projects at the moment.
03:04:00 Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. Question to Richard given that we're only asking for 21 days and potentially less and given that it's now been 20 years that we've continued an inconsistent use on this land can we just write to the Minister and ask you know let them know that we will be preparing the land management plan but whether we can get it seek approval just for this Speaker 4: for these 21 days for the 2026-2027 period. Through the Chair there's more recent correspondence with the Department over recent times particularly since the change in legislation. They've now sort of essentially transferred those powers to us to make those decisions so I guess it's not really their requirement anymore to provide that approval. We can write
03:05:00 to them and ask them those specific questions noting the changes however my understanding is that advice from them is that Council has the ability to do that through a land management plan process if it wants to make a decision around how it wants to apply inconsistent uses on its reserves. So again for clarity so we can then approve the 18 or 21 days for the 2026-2027 period and then also go through the process of submitting a land management plan. We can do both. Through the Chair my advice is that we should go through and do a land management plan prior to undertaking the use because that will ensure in the public interest that we have a clear understanding of how we will ensure that the inconsistent use does not diminish the purpose of the reserve. So our advice would be if we want to seek to undertake that activity moving forward we really should have the land management plans to
03:06:00 endorse and authorise that activity. Thank you Director MacGillivray. Councillor Wilson. Sorry just another question but you envisage that that can be done before December? Through the Chair yeah I believe it could be done obviously again a resourcing piece and obviously potential cost implication that we would need to factor in. Mr CEO just to help with that one as well my understanding Speaker 2: is that we're dealing with state government as well so it has to go to them and come back so there's no there is no guarantee on the six months that would be our hope but just the preliminary advice I got regarding our one with Tewantin was that it could have taken a lot longer than that. It was a bit in some respects simpler in other respects not so simple but we were able to sort of find our way through it in a reasonable time but you know six months is what we'd hope to do but we
03:07:00 Speaker 4: there's no guarantee. Can I just add to that point and I think it's important to and from the public interest perspective if Council decides to go through a land management plan process I think it's important not to predetermine what the outcome of that process is so I think we would need to go into it eyes open and engage with the community on that issue and go through the process as a framework to work through and understand how do we ensure that those aspects are not diminished in terms of recreational value and then obviously enable those activities if the land management plan identifies those uses and and actions that are required to ensure compliance with the Land Management Act requirements as well. Councillor Phillips. I think to the CEO maybe I have a little bit confused why this information is coming to like the ordinary meeting it would have to me been a really
03:08:00 Councillor Phillips: part of the workshops leading into this probably more I know we touched on it but now we're finding out like more information I'm just really uncomfortable with the process could you maybe give me some idea as to how we've ended up in this position today? Mayor Wilkie: Director Walsh, I think they might have made reference to it in the report. Director Walsh: Yeah, the report went last year and this year there's a clear section that articulates this conflict in the land management process and that's in all Council staff's recommendations. Councillor Phillips: Probably more was this would be really good conversation for a workshop rather than the floor is what I'm asking is what yes I understand it's in the report but we haven't had this robust conversation when it is a decision like this so that's the bit I'm uncomfortable with.
03:09:00 Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. Question through the floor again I go back to that there's almost an implied consent of the State. The State has no problem with us using this overflow car parking given that's the practice of over 20 years. It's a statement Councillor Lorentson. My question is what would happen if we just progressed allowed the 21 days for car parking and submit a land management plan? Speaker 4: Through the Chair, so if we were to undertake a an activity or use it's inconsistent with the designation potentially we'd be in breach of the Land Act. Obviously as a trustee there may be adverse implications as a result of that. I don't know what the ramifications from a penalty perspective are but our role I guess as trustees of that land is to ensure the Land Act principles and legislation is correctly followed and I guess from an
03:10:00 officer point of view that's what we're advising Council to make that advise on Mayor Wilkie: that decision. Councillor I'm going to speak to the procedural motion with I've heard enough today to understand that a workshop on the potential impacts of proceeding with a land with a with an act with a use that is inconsistent with the Land Act and our obligations as trustee of the land will have repercussions and if we want to undertake a land management plan which is the appropriate way to go if we want to proceed with parking in the Lions Park we need to understand the costs of that and also I wouldn't mind some potential advice from Kin and Co as well. It's disappointing but I think this is the wise way to go so make sure we're not in breach of our obligation Councillor Lorentson: under the Land Act. Can I also just throw on the table and a question to Richard that if we if this procedural motion falls and an amendment is moved to the alternate
03:11:00 motion stating something like subject to approval of a minister by the minister of a land management plan providing for the inconsistent use would you be satisfied with with that? I'm not sure Mayor Wilkie: I think it's a bit of an unfair question you're asking a staff member to proceed on a course that is contrary to the advice he's just given. Okay so Councillor Lorentson: rephrase my question Richard would that be or expose council to any sort of governance risk or legal risk in terms of breaching the Land Management Act? Speaker 4: Through the chair what I would say there's there's two options my initial advice applies in terms of that we should follow a land management plan process the other option is without making a decision I could seek some advice both legal and obviously from the state around the
03:12:00 ability for a temporary use until that but but again the advice previously from the state has been that we need to prepare a land management plan if we want to continue to allow a use that is inconsistent with the the designation of Councillor Lorentson: the reserve. So just for clarity if this procedural motion fails we can then move another procedural motion requesting that council write to the minister seeking temporary temporary permission to allow overflowed car Speaker 4: parking. Through the chair we could certainly write to them on that my again advice though based on previous discussions is that their advice has been quite clear back to us as the trustees to ensure that a land management plan is undertaken so we can certainly ask the question of them as a temporary whilst we undertake their land management plans but I need to get that
03:13:00 Mayor Wilkie: advice first. So even a temporary use if the minister was likely to we would still involve a land management plan and the costs and implications on the organisation would need to be fully understood before we decide to undertake a land management plan. Do you want to take that course of action? Speaker 4: Yes, through the Chair, yes. Obviously, I'm essentially looking at both aspects, both the first one to engage with the Department directly around this question, obviously whilst we prepare a Land Management Plan. Previous experience and discussions is that that is the process to follow if Council does want to explore an inconsistent use that needs to go through a Land Management Plan process. Mayor Wilkie: Any other questions of staff, Councillors? Any other people who wish to speak to the procedural motion? Councillor Wegener? Councillor Wegener: So, the procedural motion to defer this, is there any way we could just slice off the parking
03:14:00 from the rest of the report so that we could get the rest of the report through? Is that, is it, because I hate to just stop the whole process from moving forward with the report. Speaker 6: Yes, good question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, the area that I think is potentially ultramarine is, it does relate to approving an inconsistent use. So, if the motion was to be amended to remove that requirement, then that would be, overcome that concern again. So, in outstanding orders, we can't move things that are contrary to our jurisdictional power, et cetera, et cetera, so. Mayor Wilkie: You're taking on board Councillor Wegener's point, about the rest of the motion, the other elements of the motion, which are not placed to sit in conflict with the Land Act.
03:15:00 Are you happy to amend your procedural motion to make it clear that we're talking about use of the Lions Park? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't think you can amend procedural motions. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I can't stand procedural motions moved and seconded by those voted on. Okay. Not discussed. Councillor Phillips? Councillor Phillips: Question. So, we did this exact thing then last year. So, that means we breached this last year. So, has there been any feedback from State that we didn't do the right thing last year, which would give us some sort of pressure now to be in this position again? Speaker 4: Through the Chair, as outlined by Director Walsh, Council has been pretty clear that a land management plan is required if Council wants to consider utilising, using Lions Park for a use that's inconsistent and needs to develop a land plan. I guess our advice is we need to follow through on this process at some point, because potentially as it stands, we're not meeting our legal obligations under the Land Act.
03:16:00 So, our advice is we need to start this process at some point because we currently haven't been following that process and need to start to ensure that we meet those obligations going forward. Mayor Wilkie: Question to Director Walsh. If this, if this motion is deferred for a month, so we get these Land Act costings and legal advice sorted out, and that we're very clear what we're committing to, is there any reason why the rest of the program will be impeded in any way? Director Walsh: Thank you for raising the question. It does raise issues with the balance of the Govan Institute report, particularly in the negotiations with TransLink, the Department for Biodiversity and Social Work Service, because we have contractual obligations to put things in. Some of the delays last year in contract negotiations as a result of a similar council debate did cause contractual issues with one of the suppliers releasing their fleet of zero emissions buses to other suppliers, for example.
03:17:00 So, it would be preferable for the other items in the Govan Institute recommendation to at least be agreed upon, with the exception of which one is a life-losing investment. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: So, councillors, I'm going to foreshadow that if this procedural motion falls, I'll move one that says that the matter be deferred to the August ordinary meeting in order for the CEO to receive advice as to whether use of the Lyons Park for parking is in order, considering its potential conflict with the Land Act in that it proposes to proceed with an inconsistent use in the absence of the Land Management Plan and the rest of the motion to proceed. Councillor Lorentson: Can I, can I, can I? Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, I'll just ask, is that, does that solve the problem? No, no, no, it doesn't, just amend the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If I was to make a suggestion, if it was to fall, the best thing would be to amend the motion, yes. Yeah, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Alternatively, if this is to fall, I don't know why we can't on recommendation
03:18:00 or just what we've just heard from Richard, our director, that we just move a procedural motion that consideration of the proposed use of Lyons Car Park for car parking overflow parking be deferred pending correspondence being sent to the minister seeking approval for the temporary overflow use of the land while council prepares and progresses a Land Management Plan to address the ongoing management and future use of the site. To me, that addresses both issues. We write directly asking whether we, minister is okay, for 21 days, 2026, 2027. So we give some certainty to the Lyons Club and the Cooroy Woodcutting Group and other organisations, give them enough notice to prepare. And at the same time, rather than seeking advice, let's just go ahead and start progressing the Land Management Plan. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'm going to ask that the procedural motion be voted on, that was obviously addressing the motion,
03:19:00 not a question. It was also inconsistent with the advice that's been asked three times and received three times in the contract. So I think we need to put the procedural motion. Mayor Wilkie: Just to clarify again, writing to the minister you said was not recommended because the minister, it's the council's responsibility to manage the land under its control. Speaker 4: Yes, through the chair. I mean, that's absolutely, and that's what the guidelines have outlined, that that responsibility now rests with us. To make that decision. We could, as I mentioned to the council, we could make inquiries about that, but the previous advice has been, and the guidelines do refer to that, it is now our responsibility, but in the interests of trying to explore solutions, I'm open to writing a letter if that assists. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. All right, any other, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Can you explain, so if this falls, then you're gonna ask that the rest of the go,
03:20:00 both of us vote upon the rest of the go new set and defer this segment, the lines area, part of the event. Mayor Wilkie: Suggestion was that if this falls, we can amend the substantive motion to have an extra line that suggests that the use of the lines, we defer consenting to the use of the lines, part for overflow car parking, while we get further advice and costings about the land management plan, which would be required if we wanted to go down that path, which works to that effect. So the rest of the elements of the go new set program could proceed. Yeah, great, okay. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Just have a question in terms of, if we were to go back to the original recommendation to not use the car park, would that negate the need for the land management act
03:21:00 moving forward? Speaker 4: That's my understanding, but the question for staff. So could you please repeat the question, councillor? Councillor Finzel: Oh, I think I've got the answer. It'll negate it. So is there, if the opportunity, if this falls, and we go back to the original motion, which was the recommendation of the staff to not use the lines park as parking, please confirm that negates the land management. Mayor Wilkie: The need for a land management plan. Speaker 4: Through the chair, yes, it does. There's no need for a land management plan for uses that are consistent with the designation. Mayor Wilkie: Yep. Okay, any other councillors to speak to the procedural motion? You wish to close, councillor Stockwell? I think you do. Okay. Okay, all right, all in favour?
03:22:00 Councillor Wilkie, all against? Everyone else, councillor Lorentson, Wegener, Phillips, Stockwell, Finzel, and Wilson. Procedural motion is lost. Would someone like to propose an amendment? Councillor Wegener: I would like to just propose the original. Speaker 3: The original is the car. Councillor Wegener: We can't have the stage, councillor Wegener. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I might try a procedural motion if that's okay. That council defer consideration of the proposed use of the lines. You meant an amendment? An amendment. She just said a procedural motion. Maybe a procedural motion. I'm just going to test this one. That council defer consideration of the proposed use of the lines. Park car park for overflow parking and request the CEO to write to the minister seeking approval
03:23:00 for the temporary overflow use of the land while council prepares and submits a land management plan for the minister's consideration. Further. Speaker 3: Have you guys got that bit now? Do you want to email it to me? Councillor Lorentson: Oh, I could. I'll read it while I send it to you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll do a point of order to save time. There's no provision within the standing orders for a procedural motion to allow a deferred part of a motion. You must defer the whole of the motion, the item or the amendment. You can't defer part of the motion so the procedural motion to fail because it's up to the police. Mayor Wilkie: Perhaps an amendment might be more appropriate, Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson: I have an amendment that has just been sent to Cappie. Thanks. And I can't. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think you said it was the original too, did you?
03:24:00 Councillor Lorentson: Yes, you did. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll try and amend it. I'll try and amend it. Thank you, Scott. If you can bring the current motion as it stands in front of us so I can. Speaker 6: Okay. So the amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Delete items E and F. Include a new item E and F and include a new item which
03:25:00 requests staff to bring back a further report as to the appropriate process and likely costs associated with agreeing to an inconsistent use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park. Overflow car parking. Councillor Lorentson: Through the Chair, can I request before this is seconded to Councillor Stockwell whether he would include consideration of wording that we also write to the Minister to just ask the question whether or not temporary overflow car parking.
03:26:00 Can be allowed for this Christmas 2026-27 period. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wouldn't be agreeable because the Minister has no say. The reason this becomes an issue as far as the motion is concerned is that it's our decision and by law, Councillors cannot approve the motion as it is inconsistent with law. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, are you wanting to make any reference to the land management, a land management. I'm sorry. The land act or a land management plan and that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could. It's actually appropriate process obviously. I'm just trying to keep the words in. Yeah. Okay. That doesn't say when would you like to plan. I'm happy if Councillors would like to say to the next meeting of Councillors. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And if you're happy, if everyone would like a land management plan, but that is the appropriate process. Questions?
03:27:00 Councillor Phillips: No. Sorry. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Chris. Make it easy. Councillor Phillips: The report would you ask for a workshop or can we have a workshop before the report? Speaker 6: Normally you would. Yeah. Sometimes we do. We would do that anyway. We can actually do that. Mayor Wilkie: So I want to fully understand it as well. Yeah. All right. Are you happy with that wording, Councillor? Request staff to bring back a further report to the August 20. So that we can have a more consistent, ordinary meeting as to the appropriate process and likely costs associated with agreeing to an inconsistent use of the Noosa Hills Lions Park for overflow parking. May we have a seconder for that? Councillor Wilson: Sorry. Should it be the general meeting? Should it be the general committee meeting? Yes. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Only ordinary can go to ordinary. Can they go to ordinary? Oh. Councillor Wilson: Oh. It shouldn't have been to ordinary. No. Speaker 6: We did it on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. This is my deferral motion. This is an amendment. So I can go to general. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Good point, Councillor Wilson.
03:28:00 Thank you. The August general meeting. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question to Councillor Stockwell? So in terms of requesting staff to bring back a further report as to the appropriate process, may be a question to Director Richard MacGillivray. Yes. With consideration of writing to the Minister to request to her use be part of the. Point of order. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. This is getting repetitive to the point that it's almost inappropriate meeting behaviour. It's about the sixth time that same question's been asked. It's wasting our time. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Point of order is upheld. We have a seconder for the amendment, please. Oh. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Stockwell. I think we all know what we're writing. Okay. Any other councillors would speak to the amendment? Councillor Phillips: I have a question. One more question. Councillor Phillips. Yes. Because it doesn't say on the screen. So you're taking out items E and F, which is anything to do with the Lions Club car park.
03:29:00 I can't understand right now. Because that's being deleted in this amendment. So then. Yes. What is likely to happen, question, is that there'll be re-debate on the Lions Club car Director Rawlings: park after August. Councillor Phillips: And question to the CEO, is it likely to impact then, like becoming, the way I see it is that's then August. How, if there's a debate. I think that the decision in August to have the car park, like in the decision made today, is actually going to put them under significant pressure as volunteers to actually deliver, what, would there be deliveries for 20 years? I'm just. Director Walsh: Director Walsh has his hand up.
03:30:00 Thank you, question. Based on previous years, that's still not allowed enough notice to be made. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Director Walsh: So. So. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: OsawatWood 2.0. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Wegener, Stockwell, Finzel and Wilkie. Those against? Councillors Lorentson, Phillips and Wilson. The amendment is carried. It becomes part of the substantive motion to which only councillor that was moved by Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips to which Councillor Lorentson has spoken. Can we have the substantive motion up as it stands now, please? Thank you.
03:31:00 Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Okay. That's it. Thank you, Cathy.
03:32:00 Councillors, do you wish to speak? Any final comments or questions or amendments? Yes, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: I just need a few minutes to go back and look at that. The amendment I made previously to the alternative motion. Mayor Wilkie: Which is, which is part. Councillor Finzel: Oh, that's all right. Yeah, I see it there now. Yes, it still is part F. We might have to change. Mayor Wilkie: That's it. Part F. Councillor Finzel: Do we need to change that though or leave it as it is? Mayor Wilkie: That can still be done. Any other councillors wish to speak to the substantive motion before Councillor Lorentson some closes? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: So this is the substantive motion. Mayor Wilkie: This is the motion now. Councillor Wegener: But were E and F deleted from this?
03:33:00 Mayor Wilkie: The other E and F were deleted, which was, and the other items have moved up to fill E and F. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Please give me a moment to. Yeah. Speaker 6: Okay. Is it still there? It's still there now. It's still there now. It came out. It came out. Yeah, but G moved up to E and F. Councillor Finzel: I can't see it. Speaker 6: I can't see it. I can't see it. It can't see it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, no, that's totally consistent. E and F are consistent. F and G are consistent. Sorry about that. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because it doesn't mention parking. No. Because it doesn't mention parking. This means there's a stakeholder advisory group which would be part of the process for G.
03:34:00 It could be part of the process. Okay. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Phillips: Can I ask a question? Yeah. Councillor Phillips. Yes. Just in the last amendment, did you, and please take this away. I'm getting tension behind it. When E and F got deleted, was it your understanding that that then is not in the substantive motion before us, how it came out? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Yes, that's correct. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. To move this along, Councillors, I'm going to vote in support of the motion. This allows all the other elements of the GONUS program to proceed, and it also gives us the information we're going to need to make an informed decision about approving parking in the Lions Park for overflow parking. The August General Committee meeting will have feedback on and advice on the legal steps we have to go through and the like.
03:35:00 It costs, if we wanted to undertake a land management plan, which is the appropriate way to go to remain consistent with our obligations under the Land Act as trustees of the land. I think it's a good mix of initiatives, and it's the wise and responsible way to go. And there'll be debate about parking in the Lions Park in the August meeting, but it will be informed by legal advice and proper costings. Okay. Please give me your thoughts on their implications for the budget, if that's the way we choose to go. Councillor Phillips: I'm just going to speak quickly, and I won't say whether I'm for or against it at this stage, but I'm just going to make a point that the process that puts us in a position like we are today, which constantly disappoints me as someone that likes to know all the information and have really good conversations offline. I believe that this type of process puts us in real trouble, so thank you for that.
03:36:00 And because I know that this will come for me after as well, I can make decisions on the flight. What I don't like is putting us in a position where it doesn't give us good outcomes as far as how we look as a council. So, yeah, I'm really disappointed in the way that this went today. Mayor Wilkie: Council Wiener. Councillor Wegener: Well, I'd like to congratulate the Go Noosa team. They're absolutely fantastic. This, we are continuing with the Go Noosa project with this amendment. And in a way, this seems to be a kind of a line in the sand where we either completely dump the whole walking and cycling strategy, the Go Noosa strategy, and just let that go. Even though it's been supported by the livability survey, destination management plan, on and on. All of the public consultation that says we want to lessen congestion and traffic problems in the Hastings Street area, the reports come back, it's the Lions Club parking that contributes to that.
03:37:00 If we're going to go down the route of the walking and cycling strategy, well, that's just a little piece. So, it's the arguments today and the debate about the Lions Park is a much smaller piece to the overall project. Are we going to, are we usually going to go one way, which is go back and pretty much put up the walls and keep things just exactly the way they are? Are we going to go forward and try to move people and move people, not necessarily cars, try to have a walking and cycling strategy where more people can come here and flow and enjoy the place versus congestion in old ways? So, I'm happy to see that we've staggered forward and are improving the vast majority of that. The only thing is the plan.
03:38:00 So, thank you, staff and everybody for consistently pushing on. Councillor Lorentson: Question, Councillor? I do have a question to the CEO. Can I ask the CEO, is there still an opportunity, say, for the Hastings Street Association to submit an event permit to allow overflow car parking for three weeks at Lions Park? Is that another option that we haven't really discussed and may be available to the business community? Speaker 2: That's a good question. I don't have a direct answer other than to say that my feeling would be that the fact that we're the trustee of the park is our obligation. So, we're basically putting a permit back on ourselves and I'm not sure that that process is an acceptable process, but I'd be happy to take some advice on that. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor Spicer.
03:39:00 Councillor Wilson: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Phillips, I'm pretty disappointed with how much time we've wasted on this particular agenda item, both in the General Committee meeting and today. We're going round in circles. On this, we did at some point today have the majority saying we will continue to use the car park. We could have had an amendment that said subject to completion of a land management plan. We're now shifting things down the road again for another month and I think this could have been dealt with more efficiently. However, my biggest concern is that we keep getting these recommendations that say, well, we recommend that you don't use the park, therefore, we won't look into the alternative, which is to not use the park and, therefore, we should have had the information on exactly what a land management plan involves and had that posted, we shouldn't be needing to ask for more information or debate it for hours and hours and hours. That should have been given to us in the first place so that we all came to the meetings knowing exactly what we needed to do if we were going to continue to use the park for parking.
03:40:00 Mayor Wilkie: That's a stopper. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I can disagree on many levels with its last statements. Staff clearly gave us a report. They clearly gave us a bit of advice. We don't want staff to be just handing out proposals. Here's all your options. We want staff to do the job they're paid for, which is to give us professional advice. They've given us professional advice in accordance with the law and if they gave us the information required, if councils wish to vary from their recommendation, it's not up to staff to do the research to work out that they need a budget submission if they're going to do a land management plan. It's not up to staff to suggest. It's up to councils to ask the question if they want to go against it. In my experience, they've always been very helpful in providing information to inform the contrary of the law. So it's not wise to suggest that it's disappointing of staff. It's a job of a councillor to come to meetings prepared and I think every councillor that came to this meeting understanding there was going to be a significant debate over the issue because it's always very significant debate.
03:41:00 I'm happy to support the motion. I do leave the motion. The mayor has to drive with the deferral motion because I listened to the director who said it would potentially have impact on the other aspects of the Go News program and that's important. When I'm a councillor, I make decisions to try and make it take us steps forward and the Go News program is one that year on year takes steps forward and of course it's in a better position to address the issues that we have got from the fact that, as I think councillor Wheaton mentioned, you know, it's the best beach in Australia. It's basically north when the surf is going and the natural environment. So I support the motion, I'd like Go News to go ahead and I fully appreciate where the majority of the councillors did indicate and that's why I think the most important thing is we go ahead in a way that is consistent with the land act now and we have the responsibility to make a good decision.
03:42:00 Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, Councillor Wilson, there was an implied criticism in your statements about the report. Is there anything you'd like to say about that one? Would you care to withdraw any element of that? Speaker 6: No. Mayor Wilkie: And apologise for any offence caused to the staff. Councillor Wilson: I apologise for any offence, but I believe the information should have been in the report. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. And just to make clear, the information about the land, the requirements for the land, our reference to our obligations on the Land Act were part of the report. Yes, that's right. Okay. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion before Councillor Lorentson closes? Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Firstly, I'd like to just say,
03:43:00 thank you to all the fellow councillors for the work that everyone's done on this, the rigorous debate and questions around the table. I think for diligence to take the time to pause and review, given what's been spoken around the table today, you know, I think leadership is about process. So I'm happy to follow this process to make sure that we pause and make sure we get the right information back at the table. I'm hopeful and mindful that the other stakeholders, the Lions Park, the business owners and the community, through the amendment I've put up, will be eventually able to have a say. I think we've just got to wait for that further information to come back to us. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lysons, do you have a close? Councillor Lorentson: Okay, where do I start? Lots of conversation around the table in terms of, you know, legal risk, governance risk, process, costs, et cetera.
03:44:00 What I haven't heard around the table is reputational risk. And reputational risk in terms of our decision making and public trust. You know, references made that this had nothing to do with Danello and the analogy that was made by some of the councillors wasn't relevant. And I totally disagree. The reference of a commonality was about listening to the people that put us in our seats. The commonality or the similarity was about listening to our small businesses. Councillor Lorentson, have you seen what was said about the amendment, Mayor Wilkie: not the motion that's before us? Councillor Lorentson: No, I'm talking, I'm referencing the motion in front of us and I'm also referencing the comments that I made when I moved. The motion. Thank you, Mayor Wilkie.
03:45:00 So, so again, we're sitting here. We had a majority. We had a majority. Four of us had agreed to allow overflow car parking and then a procedural motion and further amendments were made after a consensus to allow 18 or 21 days to open the Lions Park. To me, what's in front of us is a problem to a solution. We had a solution and we found a way to make it a problem. Last year, we opened the park. There was no Land Management Act, there was no breaches, no letters from the Minister of State saying that we had breached any of our legal requirements. Again, post, I post a couple of questions. Why can't we just simply write to the Minister, point of order? What are unacceptable meeting conduct?
03:46:00 Again, finding problems to potentially solutions. Is there an opportunity for Hastings Street Association to apply for an event permit to allow overflowing? I find that sometimes that maybe it's the mindset of the people that are making decisions that impact or impede or compromise public trust. Maybe we shouldn't be looking at these sorts of recommendations that affect or impede or With a mindset, yes, if, rather than no, but. Keep coming back to, you know, discussions about economic impact, the events of the last week, our business roundtable on Monday, and it's just a recurring, recurring thing. That we need to understand that the decisions that are made around this table impact real people every day. The cost of delay impact people in dollars,
03:47:00 and also mental well-being. The pressures, the uncertainty. Every time we kick a can down the track, every time we include another layer of process, another layer of perplexity, that destroys trust in community, in our decision-making. We should be sitting here today with enough information to have made a decision today. That hasn't happened. So, I am really disappointed at where we're sitting. Really disappointed. Last week, we were given a warning. Should listen to our small businesses and our community, and I just think we missed that opportunity. To show real leadership, and to listen to the people, again, who put us here. Who paid for our wages.
03:48:00 Yeah, I think we can do better, and I think our community expects better of us. This is not okay to me. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, those in favour of the governance of motion. Councillor Wegener, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilkie, those against. Councillors Lorentson and Phillips, and all those against. Councillor Wilson, the motion is carried. That brings us to Item 11.1.3, the Draft Burgess Creek Integrated Cachement Management Plan. Councillor Lorentson, you have the declaration. Councillor Lorentson: Alright, Councillor Amelia Lawrenson, before the meeting, that I have a conflict of interest for Item 7.3, Draft Burgess Creek Integrated Cachement Management Plan. On this agenda, my brother lives approximately by 50 metres from here, from the mouth of the Burgess Creek, and I have recently purchased a property in Sunrise Breach,
11.1.3 DRAFT BURGESS CREEK INTEGRATED CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (ICMP) ¶
03:49:00 approximately by 50 metres from the mouth of Burgess Creek. This distance has been checked and confirmed by the Government's team. Any previous statement I made on this were estimates, in an abundance of caution, and consistent with the advice from the Office of Independent Assessor, I believe it is prudent to declare this interest. Consistent with legal advice previously considered by this Council, and the question of proximity. Proximity alone gives rise to a conflict of interest only, not a material personal interest. My position falls within that same capitalisation. The ICUP for Burgess Creek is a shire-wide body of work. It forms part of a border use and catchment strategy for waterways, and the decisions before this meeting affect the entire community. It is in that community interest that I wish to contribute, and consistently declare this interest, and I believe I am able to consider this matter impartially, and in the public interest. I choose to remain in the meeting room,
03:50:00 and vote on the issue. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Rice. Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep. I wish to inform the meeting I have a conflict of interest under Operator 11.3 draft Burgess Creek Intermediate Catchment Management Plan. On this agenda, due to my role as President of Noosa Lions Football Club, which has fields in the catchment, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the club does not profit from or suffer a loss as a result of the plan, and while larger... In area? In area, than most allotments that are in and missing there, thanks, Cathy, has not significantly greater interest than the many people who live in the catchment. As I have specialist expertise and security experience in the subject matter, I choose to remain in the room and vote on the matter. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. If someone can move the motion, the item. Councillor... Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Finzel: Oh, happy to move. Mayor Wilkie: Seconded. Councillor Wilson?
03:51:00 Okay. All in favour of the draft Burgess Creek Integrated Catchment Management Plan? That's carried unanimously. 11.1.4 is up and running. Application for material change of use premises to establish indoor sport and recreation at 26 Eandy Creek Road, Noosaville. 11.1.5, planning applications decided by delegated authority, May 2026. 11.1.6, procurement contracts assessment, work and training contract awards under the CEO delegation. 11.1.7 was referred to the ordinary meeting. We'll deal with this later in the agenda. 11.1.8, operational plan, 2026, 2027. 11.1.9, appointment of the 2027 show holiday. 11.1.10 was referred to the ordinary meeting. We'll deal with this later in the agenda. It's a confidential Noosa Plan Draft Amendment employment land item. 11.1.11 is the general committee Speaker 5: recommendations on block. Mayor Wilkie: May I have a move and seconded for the general committee recommendations to be adopted except we're dealt with separately. So moved.
11.1.4 MCU25/0119 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OF PREMISES TO ESTABLISH INDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION AT 26 EENIE CREEK ROAD, NOOSAVILLE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – MAY 2026 ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.6 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS ASSESSMENT WORKING TEAM - CONTRACT AWARDS UNDER CEO DELEGATION ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.7 2026 LGAQ CONFERENCE MOTIONS & COUNCILLOR ATTENDANCE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.8 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2026-2027 ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.9 APPOINTMENT OF 2027 SHOW HOLIDAY ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.10 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - NOOSA PLAN 2020 DRAFT AMENDMENT 4 - EMPLOYMENT LAND ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.11 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ENBLOC ¶
03:52:00 Moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That's carried. Item 12.1 is the LGAQ conference motions and counsellor attendance. Look, I'll move that. We need to pull that out for a couple of reasons. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we need clear names in the bank? That's what I'll be... Councillor Lorentson: But Amelia's got some attachments to you. Do you want to do that for counsellors' names? I was going to just move it. But that's all right? Mayor Wilkie: Can I... Can I... Councillor Lorentson: Look, I'm only moving Mayor Wilkie: for the counsellors' names now. Councillor Lorentson: OK. Oh, OK. That's all right then. OK. Sorry. So you just want to move... I think it's probably easy if I just move it and then I can add the counsellors' names to the queue. Conference motions
12.1 2026 LGAQ CONFERENCE MOTIONS & COUNCILLOR ATTENDANCE (Referred from the General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 - Item 7.7) ¶
03:53:00 and counsellor attendance. B, approve the submission of the following motions to the Local Government Association of Queensland and your conference 2026 for consideration and debate. A, motion, coordinated transition and ongoing funding for local governments to continue to provide flood monitoring services. B, motion, UNESCO Bicycle Reserves state and national recognition and funding provided at attachment lunch of the minutes of the ordinary meeting dated 16 July. Motion, UNESCO Bicycle Reserves updated. C, motion, state planning reforms to existing mist rights for short-term accommodation in low density residential zones provided at attachment. 3, D, motion, recognising and protecting soil as natural critical infrastructure provided at attachment. 4, E, motion, electronic gaming on council-owned and trustee land
03:54:00 provided at attachment. 6, G, motion, funding Queensland councils to pilot opting and reusable cut programs provided at attachment. 7, H, motion, future-proofing Queensland's water supply, a whole water cycle approach to climate resilience provided at attachment. 8, I, motion, UNESCO Bicycle Reserves parking program provided at attachment. 2, to the minutes of the ordinary meeting dated 16th of July, motion, state-led safe parking program updated. And C, approve Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Finzel to attend at the 2026 LGAQ conference in Cairns in October 2026 under the Council's expenses, reimbursement and provision of facilities policy item 2.1, mandatory professional development and representation.
03:55:00 Mayor Wilkie: I'll have a second after this. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Part B. Councillor Lorentson: Attachment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, the attachments up there, the attachments on our version of Resolve Don't Line Up. So, attachment 1 here is coordinating transition ongoing funding and you talk about attachment 1 being related to the Councillor Lorentson: to the minutes. The new copies will be tried at attachment 1 to the minutes of today. Have we seen Deputy Mayor Stockwell: the new Councillor Lorentson: attachment? Yes, they were distributed to all Councillors from Councillor Lorentson. I can show them on screen now if you'd like to see the changes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, just the way it's worded it's not right. That's how we always, when we attach it to the minutes, attach them one to the minutes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, okay. So, you have minutes up there rather than the agenda here. Okay. Sure. Yeah. Anyway, we appreciate the Resolve. Councillor Lorentson: I can show you the attachment.
03:56:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Now, I'll find if I'm misreading it. Now, I can show you Councillor Lorentson: the Resolve. I'll speak to the motion and I'll speak specifically to the ones that I've put forward and leave the Councillor Finzel's motion for her to speak to. Mayor Wilkie: And, Councillor Lorentson, we'll keep the five minutes if that's okay. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. I'm going to speed read this. Okay. I'm just going to speak to the motions that I've put forward and why I believe they matter. The first one is housing and it's to address what's happening right now in our community that there are people sleeping in cars women over 55, workers that can't afford local rents, families doing it tough. Many of them are employed and have strong local connections and simply can't secure affordable housing despite maintaining work. That's the reality
03:57:00 of the housing crisis on the ground. I went to a recent Salvation Army fundraiser a few weeks back and I was totally inspired by the work that Salvation has been doing in this space. They're showing that safe, supportive overnight parking is practical and dignified and it works. So my motion is basically a follow up from the great work that they're doing. It asks that states should fund pilot programs using surplus government state land, education facilities, transport and rail land or other appropriate state assets to provide safe overnight parking for people experiencing homelessness including those employed and living in new vehicles. It also asks the state to deliver on site wraparound services including housing assistance, health care, mental health support, employment support and pathways out. The motion doesn't solve the housing crisis and nobody's claiming it but it helps people tonight while longer term solutions are worked through.
03:58:00 Local governments are not housing authorities and they're not a resource to respond to the growing demand for homelessness services. That's state responsibility and the LGOQ is the right place to make that call loudly and to make sure Queensland local governments stand together in making it. Then I probably might talk to all my motions the most important ones gaming machines I'm going to talk quickly about that. Problem gambling causes real and devastating harm to individuals and families in our community. Financial ruin mental health crisis relationship breakdowns the social cost runs into the billions across Queensland every year and yet councils currently have almost no say when a poker licence is granted transferred or expanded in their own community. My motion pretty much asks for two straightforward things mandatory consultation with local councils before gaming licenses are granted or expanded and greater legislative standing for councils
03:59:00 to address venue clustering and the harm it causes. This is not about banning poker machines it's about giving communities a genuine voice in decisions that directly affect them. We've heard from residents families and the communities who have lived this harm first hand and my motion simply responds to that. Water security is another motion single use cups spire sphere world surfing reserve. Given that I'm on the clock probably what I want to say is that I've worked with our community on most of these motions and I want to thank them and it's been genuinely rewarding. I want to note that the bigger issues are already on the LGAQ
04:00:00 agendas in terms of housing etc. What these motions do is basically to conversations that are here amongst us in our community. Safe parking for people sleeping in their cars tonight. A real voice on gaming in our neighbourhoods. Water security before the next drought. State funding to support businesses transitioning away from single use and proper recognition and funding from the State not local rate payers for the places and assets we love and have worked so hard to protect. Again I've used used my position here in Council to bring forward some motions to advocate for the people who came to me and asked for a voice. So I'm hoping that they will get support across the State at the next LGAQ conference. Mayor Wilkie: Well said Councillor Morrison. Thank you. And the councillors wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: I'm going to be very very quick to say thank you to the councillors
04:01:00 for putting in the work. Councillor Morrison. And staff. And staff. Yes. Thank you. Sorry. I was talking about the Thank you. Yes. Yep. I said that. Speaker 6: Oh. Councillor Phillips: I think it's great to see what staff identify as key things that come through as issues and bring it through this way to LGAQ and I really enjoyed going to the conference last year but also there's not many people I now meet in the community that haven't already said they've met Councillor Morrison. So she is out there. I wish I've got two young kids as everyone knows I can't be there as much as you are but you are everywhere and you're always bringing the things that are on the ground that people are always talking to me about. You're bringing it
04:02:00 right where it should be. So thank you all everyone for doing that. Thank you. All right. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Well one of the the motions that reflects the community concern is that the local government association of Queensland calls on the Queensland State Government to implement targeted legislative reform to better manage the impacts of short-term accommodation on housing supply and residential amenity by amending the Planning Act and Planning Regulation to modify the operation of existing use rights for non-hosted short-term accommodation in a low-density residential zone. So this applies only to whole houses in the low-density residential zone by limiting the continuation of existing
04:03:00 use rights providing for the extinguishment of such rights upon the transfer of property ownership enabling a gradual transition of affected dwellings back to the permanent residential use and provides an opt-in mechanism for local governments is not mandatory recognising variations in housing pressures, tourism profiles and community expectations across Queensland because some local governments are wanting to have more short-term accommodation and attract more visitors and have sufficient housing supply. Establishing a clear balanced statutory framework that enables a staged and orderly transition of housing stock back to long-term residential use and retains appropriate support for low-impact and supports non-hosted short-term accommodation where it is expressly permitted and approved under the planning scheme. Now all these motions will go to the LGAQ. They'll assess
04:04:00 their appropriateness or otherwise for proceeding to the conference in October where they'll be debated and hopefully adopted by the LGAQ and advocated for to the appropriate levels of government which may, we hope, end up in legislative change and in support. Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Yes. Thank you. I'd like to thank the directors and the staff that did a significant contribution to this motion. I've also reached out to councils out west and they are fully supportive of this motion. The motion around the let me just read out what that is and it is has statewide significance. I'm calling on the state government to develop a comprehensive Queensland soil health plan to organisate operationalise the national soil strategy at the state
04:05:00 level and recognise soil as a key national asset and critical infrastructure essential for water security, agricultural productivity, healthy waterways, flood attenuation, climate resilience and functioning ecosystems. Noting that Soil Science Australia estimates soils deliver $930 billion value to our economy making soils Australia's most valuable natural asset. So we want to advocate to complement the state soils data with a comprehensive soil health map with harmonised soil data sets at a catchment level as well as a more centralised and accessible program that landholders can access for information, advice and support to improve soil health without cost is required. It's also worth noting that the global goals
04:06:00 adopted in 2015 as part of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development are designed to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure peace and prosperity for all. Healthy soils underpin our collective ability to achieve the sustainable development goals as acknowledged by Australia's 20 year National Soil Strategy 2021. But while the strategy aims to recognise soil as a vital asset, Queensland currently lacks a cohesive state level strategy to operationalise this, particularly for local governments. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Other speakers? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will. It's an interesting group of motions which sort of shows the diversity that local government tries to deal with. The soils one, there's a very
04:07:00 interesting case where I remember years ago, we tried to get a green infrastructure component to the SEQ regional plan. And the healthy soil issue is one that not only underpins all the benefits of our food production, but also healthy soils also have a significantly greater capacity to sequester carbon. So putting more organic content in your soil not only grows better crops, reduces water runoff, but it also helps to address global greenhouse gases. The Mayor mentioned the short-term accommodation issue, and that was one that I mentioned back in probably three years ago as the only next step we could take to address the level of short-term accommodation we have currently within our normal dwelling stock. That will have implications to depend what their planning scheme defined as a dwelling at the time that the
04:08:00 big surge occurred in short-term accommodation and in Noosa. It was around about 2017 to 2020, and unfortunately our scheme that was adopted in 2006 had a very generous definition of a dwelling house in Lodensky at the time. And we had no development control implements that enabled us to refuse a short-term accommodation use according to the legal advice at the time. So, that is, if it didn't get the requested change, would be one of the most significant next steps we could take in terms of maintaining our housing stock in our Lodensky residential suburbs for people to live in. The one that hasn't been mentioned yet is the one on submission to the State Planning Policy Review. And at the National Planning Congress I ran into the equivalent of our Director for Sustainability and Environment and one of the first things he raised was how concerned he was about the meetings he'd just been to in regard to the proposal by the State
04:09:00 to wipe out a whole lot of State Planning interests. And, to me, the proposal, if it was adopted, is a step back from good planning. It's a step back to allowing councils to fight their own fights, which generally means if you haven't got the State setting the minimum benchmark, it means you're more likely to be paying ratepayers' dollars to defend good planning decisions because they'll be challenging the value of the council overlays. So, to me, that is a really important one for the upholding of the values we hold very dear to us and it is one that I'm confident there'll be many councils around Queensland who will support because it is a significant issue. It is a significant step back from the State in terms of their role in the planning hierarchy. So, we aren't sure that any will go to the conference but there are a range
04:10:00 of interesting ones there that do talk to the issues of our time. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Stockwell raised a very important point and I have a question for Director Rawlings or Director MacGillivray about if you can articulate some of the changes that are proposed as a threat to the Shire or where future residential developments may occur. Director Rawlings: I will get Director MacGillivray for paper, rock, scissors to respond. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think you, right? Director Rawlings: Through the Chair. The State are in the process of doing two very significant reviews at the moment. The State Planning Policy is the SPP framework work in conjunction with our Local Planning Policy. So, we have our Local Planning Policy, our Noosa Plan and the State Planning Policy,
04:11:00 the SPP which outlines a whole raft of State interests and when we go through the development assessment process depending on levels of assessment, the State Planning Policy, the SPP plays an important part in the assessment of managing a variety of State interests relating to things like natural hazards, bushfire, biodiversity areas, flood, you know, the raft of natural hazards that occur. At the moment, the SPP is under review and the advice is that the, those aspects of the SPP will be removed from the framework around natural hazards, flood, bushfire, climate, erosion, those sorts of things from the State Policy. That doesn't mean that those issues can't be looked at as part of the Local Planning Framework and they do have
04:12:00 emphasis in our own Planning Scheme. But it is, it is somewhat concerning that those important issues that aren't just local issues, they are statewide issues. And what the State Planning Policy also does is provide a consistent framework and a consistent methodology for how all local governments consider these things as well as statewide mapping. So, if those things were to not occur, there's some real risks around, you know, issues or issues that might occur through the development assessment process. Potential for inconsistent methodologies and mapping to occur across local governments, which is not helpful for the development industry who many work across local government boundaries if that was to happen. So, yes, it's in the middle of a review at the moment and I think it will be a topical discussion
04:13:00 at the LGAQ. Mayor Wilkie: So, just to break it down, Director Lorentson, that means there can be less regard to when you say hazard mapping, that's flood zones, fire-prone zones, there could be developments that are rushed through or approved in areas that are flood-prone and fire-prone without proper regard to those hazards? Director Rawlings: From a state planning policy perspective, yes, but that doesn't mean that local governments cannot still consider those things at the local level, which we would still do because it sits within our planning scheme. Councillor Finzel: But Director Rawlings: as a state level interest, yes, there are implications. So, Mayor Wilkie: if these changes do go through, if a council refuses a subdivision, for example, in a flood-prone zone because of that risk, is there a possibility that the state may override that decision because of these changes? Director Rawlings: I'm looking to Richard here because I don't want to jump
04:14:00 at scenarios, Jacqueline Gray: but Director Rawlings: there are some concerns because this process, if the application is refused, it depends on whether it goes through a court process, an appeal process, it depends on whether or not we've relied on the issue as state interest, as part of the decision making. So, there's a few variables in it. And the motion that we are putting to the LGAQ really raises the risks that there are some risks and the outcomes, the unintended consequences are not fully understood or fully considered. And that's just outlined is a potential and it's we're concerned that that hasn't been fully considered. Speaker 6: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lawson, do you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: I'll keep it brief, but every year the
04:15:00 LGAQ annual conference gives us a genuine opportunity to put out community voices in front of state and federal governments, backed by the councils right here across Queensland. I think what the motions that we've just heard in front of us just form a suite of, I think, about 122 motions that are put forward by 77 councils across Queensland. I think people forget that the main purpose of the LGA conference is actually to, for the LGAQ, which is our peak advocacy body, they put forward what's called an action plan. It's called a, oh my gosh, the 2026 advocacy action plan. So that basically identifies the top key priorities that have been identified across all the 77 councils. And this year, the top seven,
04:16:00 and it comes as no surprise after listening to Richard and Kim, and also reflecting the motions we've got in front of us, the issues are, the key priorities are reducing the cost of living, energy that works for Queensland, better local infrastructure, planning, development and housing for the future, building safe, resilient and livable communities, empowering First Nations people, stronger councils, and protecting the environment. I think my take home, I've been going to both national and state conferences for over six years, and my take home is that that councils, the level of government that councils sit, that we get a really small share of all the national funding and the challenges we face we can't do alone. So this is our opportunity to advocate
04:17:00 to the state, to the federal and amplify our issues and priorities through an advocacy group where it's not one council that's asking for help, it's the voices of 77 councils across Queensland, and that makes a hell of a lot more noise than just one council. So it's an honour and privilege and I'm looking forward to. It's, you take, you bring home so much from these conferences. It's a real learning experience and networking experience. Thank you, Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. We now come to the ordinary meeting reports. Sorry, 12.2. It's a confidential item that was referred to the ordinary meeting. As this is a confidential item, we'll move this item to be dealt with during the confidential session later in this agenda. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, just a query on that.
13 ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
13.1 RECREATIONAL BOATING FACILTIES AT HILTON ESPLANADE (DOONELLA BRIDGE, TEWANTIN) BY MARITIME SAFETY QUEENSLAND ¶
04:18:00 We moved the alternative motion without debate without going to conference. So, just wondering do we need to debate it again? That's all. Mayor Wilkie: I'd like to. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You'd like to understand. Mayor Wilkie: I'd like to understand the changes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. We now move to item 13, ordinary meeting reports. Recreational boating facilities at Hilton, Esplanade, Doonella Bridge, Tewantin via Maritime Safety Queensland. We have Director Walsh here for this report. Councillor Phillips: Can I ask Mayor Wilkie: for one minute Councillor Phillips: adjournment? Mayor Wilkie: Absolutely. We'll take five minutes. That's okay. Yeah. Thank you.
04:28:00 Thank you. Director Walsh: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
04:29:00 Thank you very much. I'd like to further consider as part of their design requirements for the site, following assessment by council officers. It is noted that MSQ have not undertaken a community engagement program over the detailed design of this facility as of yet, and council welcomes the finding of that community engagement program before finalising its deliberations.
04:30:00 The report also notes some concerns for the funding arrangements, particularly the onshore components, to ensure it's adequately accommodated in the design. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Now, before we move to questions, I'm happy to move it. Before a seconder, we can have questions of Shaun. So, I'd like to move that. Okay. Oh, without a seconder. Without a seconder to allow questions. Councillor Finzel: What? Mayor Wilkie: Well, okay. Oh, already a seconder. All right, seconder, Councillor Stockwell. Okay. Thank you very much for the report. As the report makes clear, this is an MSQ project. MSQ is driving the consultation. And they are collaborating. The council on the design. It's very important that this project gets a move on. Members of the community are very, many members of the community are very keen to see this project progress. They've actually gone to some trouble to raise the money. The lack of funds was an objection. Prior to the last election, they managed to get a commitment out of the incoming LNP government, $2.5 billion towards this project.
04:31:00 So, they've gone some way. A long way towards getting this project happening. I do have some questions about some of the parameters, but I understand that the council is proactively working with MSQ. MSQ are the project managers, but they are quite collaborative in their approach and they are quite open to taking them on board or considering some of the parameters that you've listed here. I have a question about C. Could you explain why? Why the setback from Doonella Bridge for future traffic lanes is a consideration here, because we're looking at broadening the approaches to Doonella Bridge or broadening Doonella Bridge in the future? Director Walsh: Just a part of the detailed technical assessment, you know, with our roads pointed out that, you know, we have a bridge which is, you know, over 50 years old, which we're well aware that is under repair at the moment, and just being prudent to actually preserve, you know, space and the approaches to that bridge to consider.
04:32:00 Alternative arrangements in the future. So, in terms of approaches, approach ramps, and also dealing with any hydrological issues associated with the bridge as well, so. Mayor Wilkie: So, just to clarify, that was advice from DTMR? Director Walsh: No, that was a council structure and a council bridge. So, it's advice from our internal engineers. Mayor Wilkie: So, engineers. Director Walsh: Yeah. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Questions? Councillor Wilson? Councillor Wilson: For part C, advise MSQ of the following design parameters that council seeks for MSQ to include in its ongoing design work. How has that been arrived at, given that we don't have a council position on what we want the design to be? Director Walsh: It's a recommendation from council staff, following our officer review of the proposal, as detailed in the report. It also follows on from council's previous resolution in June 2023, which raised issues
04:33:00 for, you know, new roads. You know, number of parking. You know, foreshore impacts. Number of CTU units. So, we're being consistent with the previous recommendation from council. Speaker 6: Councillor Phillips? Councillor Phillips: Question, just in relation, again, back to the Doonella bridge. The current, I had to bring it up, but we're currently looking at what's underway now. In that consideration with the contractor, was there, I'm just, sort of back to C, was there, is this trying to foresee future? Yes. Director Walsh: It's not, it's not about the current bridge works at all. So, the embankment is being reconstructed in that location. This is just future proofing. The idea that maybe the bridge structure looks very different in the future. So, it's just preserving options and setback. It's not contrary to actually some of the design layouts and the like. So, yep, it's just prudent to raise that as an idea or recommendation. Councillor Phillips: And just to clarify then, the current bridge that we're seeing under, how many years is
04:34:00 that meant to give us? Director Walsh: We're hoping that it'll give us 40 years, but we'll need to plan for its replacement probably 10 to 15 years ahead of that timeframe. Mayor Wilkie: Question, how soon do you think MSQ is going to move to the public consultation on the process? Director Walsh: They haven't indicated to us. We would prefer sooner rather than later because obviously this proposal is generating a lot of interest. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. And this project intersects with another project that's planned for Hilton Esplanade. Could you give us an overview of how these two projects may intersect? Yeah. And at which points? Director Walsh: Yeah. So, the other project that council is pursuing in that location is the reconstruction of the street, the reconstruction of the drainage, and the dealing with foreshore erosion along Hilton Esplanade. And we've been out in the community about that project. We've been very careful to point out to the community that the scope of that project does not include this program area. So, it's outside the scope.
04:35:00 So, they have raised concerns and thoughts as a result of some of the public commentary about this proposal to us. But we've had to let them know that they need to raise those concerns directly with MSQ as part of their future consultation program. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: And just from the feedback received so far from the residents, what are some of the things they would like to see in regard to the way Hilton Esplanade project intersects with this program? Director Walsh: Yeah. So, as part of the consultation for that project, and it wasn't solicited by staff, but they did submit a letter raising concerns for a boat facility in this location, and specific concerns for vehicle and traffic along Hilton Esplanade accessing the carpark board. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: And was feedback also sought from the voting community? Director Walsh: So, when we were out to the community, we weren't actually out in the community about the boat ramp facility. We had a very clear plan about what our scope of engagement was.
04:36:00 And that stage of engagement was the first stage, which was actually engaged with local residents prior to actually further developing a plan, which needs further consideration. But the scope of works was really just the Hilton Esplanade adjacent to the residents and not concerning where this boat ramp was placed on this. Speaker 6: Okay. Councillor Phillips: Question in relation to item A. I'm just wondering if MSQ has identified a legislative requirement for commercial vessel launching at this location. If so, I'm just wondering why Council specifically talked about what they would like to see launched off there. It just doesn't seem to be our lane. So, I just need to clarify if they're both position. Director Walsh: This is based on operational experience from us and Council, because we actually issue road permits for actually deployment and retrieval of vessels in that location. Maybe about 12 times a year. I'll just give you a frequency. So, that area was used for the retrieval of all the houseboats on the river recently. But it's also used by Council for actually deployment of rock for rock armoury. And also other providers, such as when we launch the dredges that come into the river
04:37:00 to actually dredge the canals. So, functionally, it is an area that is used for deployment of those size of vessels. And the benefits of that location is that when they're using it, it doesn't impact upon the only other locations for deployment of those vessels, which would be the boat ramps at Lake Street and also Thomas Street. So, it's convenient in that regard. It's also a fairly open area. So, I need to point out, we don't think this is, what's the word, contrary or exclusive to, you know, to event, you know, any future unit. It's just a design permit to have a large open area for a large truck to back in there and deploy or retrieve large items. Mayor Wilkie: Just a question. Is MSQ under any obligation to include all these, being the project manager? Director Walsh: Yes. So, well, no. They'll consider that along with other parameters from state government stakeholders and the community. Councillor Lorentson: That's all the question. Councillor Phillips: No. I just have one more question. With the provision of a shared pathway through and adjacent to the site, just having
04:38:00 flashbacks of the foreshore plan where we had to widen the footpath to avoid people going through the boat area down on foreshore. So, that one's confused me about why that provision is in there. Director Walsh: Yeah. There already is, as part of the cycle, you know, walking route, people coming from Filton Esplanade onto the bikeway bridge. So, that's already a popular route. But, you know, as part of upgrade to that facility, we just need to formalise those arrangements and make sure it's properly accommodated for them. So, there are options that it could weave around, you know, the fire station and back into Filton Esplanade and not be anywhere within the actual boat ramp area. And ideally, we would separate those. And that's been some of our discussions today. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morrison. I'd like to move an amendment, please. Amendment? Yep. That Recommendation C is deleted in its entirety and Recommendation E be amended as follows.
04:39:00 E, request the matter be reported back to Council for further consideration of the proposal following MSQ's community and stakeholder engagement and consultation findings, at which point Council will consider its position on design matters if required. Councillor Wilson: I'll give a second. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: So, from Councillor Wilson. Councillor Morrison. Councillor Lorentson: My reasons. Okay. I'll start with, first of all, this is a state-led, state-funded project. And it's important that we understand that MSQ are the experts and we should actually just leave it to them. MSQ is funding and designing this facility. Council is not the design authority here.
04:40:00 I'm concerned that sending MSQ a nine-point list of design conditions before they've even consulted the community places Council in the position of dictating outcomes in an area that, in my opinion, should be fall within MSQ's expertise and mandates, not Council's. Also, I want to note that the money was won by the boaties. So, I'm concerned that the money was won by the boaties. And their objective was to fix a car trailer parking shortfall. The funding exists because the boat owners campaigned for it. And with the support of our former mayor, Claire Stewart, and ex-state LNP candidate, she was able to secure a $2.5 million election commitment that was specifically to address the critical shortfall in trailer parking. And I think it's really important to throw some data. Noosa Shire has the highest per capita registration of small vessels and the second highest per
04:41:00 capita registration of travelable vessels of any local government area in southeast Queensland. There's 5,156 vessels registered to the Shire as at 2022, of which 95% are travelable. Against that demand, and there's only currently 39 former trailer car parks. Again, I'm going to repeat, there's probably about 5,000 registered boats here in the Shire and only 39 former trailer car parks. This is not a complex planning problem requiring nine conditions. It's generally straightforward. There's a severe shortfall that we need to address. And we need more car trailer parking on land that's already used informally for exactly that purpose.
04:42:00 I want to note, when I went through the report, there was a version 02 with 16 space concept. I really want on record that I think that should actually just be deleted, not even entertained. A net gain of roughly six spaces. So informally, at the moment, we've got about 10 car parker trailing. And we've got about a third of them on land. An extra six is, to me, a total waste of $2.5 million of hard-won state funding. So I really want that to be totally scrapped. Item C-A is redundant. You know, as Councillor Phillips sort of mentioned, that, to me, that provision for a periodic large commercial vessel and item launch is already a matter of MSQ's own planning and permanent arrangement seems almost redundant.
04:43:00 Item C-B, I keep going back to the November 2023 non-powered water sports feasibility study. It seems that we're contradicting our own findings and also raises safety concerns. And all the remaining design parameters, the setbacks, CPTD, environmental impacts, amenity infrastructure, to me, again, are probably matters for MSQ's design process and forthcoming community consultation. It shouldn't be a pre-empted council position. We're not even seeing the MSQ's consultation outcomes and locking in detailed positions, to me, risk pre-empting or conflicting with what genuine community and voter consultation will surface. I think we should just wait to respond until after that consultation with our boaties and with community. Rather than trying to anticipate every design issue in advance. Again, I'm just going to finish by saying that what I'm seeing in front of us
04:44:00 is that we're over-complicating something that is fundamentally a very simple ask. This is remnant road reserve land that's already been used informally for trailer parking. What the funding was for is to formalise and expand the existing use to meet known quantified demand. I requested we delete all the long list of conditions and allow MSQ the ability to just do their job as technical experts. Mayor Wilkie: Question, are these actually conditions that MSQ are obliged to abide by? Director Walsh: I can't answer that, Councillor Wilkie. It depends on your planning interpretation. So if they're actually required to actually lodge a development application to Council to execute the works, which is consistent with our interpretation,
04:45:00 these are things that we would have to consider under NISA plan. So like it's a forecast. They may have exemptions under their relevant legislation that they don't need to lodge a development application. So there's varying interpretations and they would need to be assessed under that relevant instrument. Mayor Wilkie: And just to clarify, could you clarify the tenure of the land, who's responsible for it, and what the Council's responsibilities are for giving advice on future developments such as this? Director Walsh: So the tenure of the land above Highwood Wooden Mark is road reserved under Council trusteeship. So that is land set aside for transport and road purposes. So that's clear. Some of the proposals, some of the proposals do extend into the Noosa River, which is below Council or outside of Council jurisdiction. And probably that process would be led by Department of Natural Resources and various other state agencies about the use of that land. In terms of the zoning, it's unzoned.
04:46:00 So for the purpose of the planning scheme, we would assume the zone of the adjacent land, which is community services zone for the fire station, noting there is a tourist accommodation zone and environmental management conservation on the other side of Fulton Esplanade. That would set up a landing under Council's Noosa plan as being code accessible. This is defined as a landing. So it would provoke possibly development application. The use is a mixture of informal dirt, you know, car parking, and those historical photos show that's probably a legacy as a result of it being the original approach road to the previous bridge across the Doonella Bridge. This green space, which is used in formal Noosa Park and along the foreshore, and also the adjacent fire station. Mayor Wilkie: And given MSQ is the project manager and often after on this project, are these inclusions intended to give MSQ some guidance or considerations rather than hard and pass mandatory
04:47:00 that they must do? Director Walsh: Yeah, and I think that's, you know, suggested or ideal design parameters. But we think that's, you know, something for them to consider. We think this is consistent with the way Council approach any other development in that location, whether it was private development or public development. Consistent with the Noosa plan and other guiding documents, strategies, Noosa technical principles. Mayor Wilkie: Council Waiter. Councillor Wegener: Considering it, 2.5 million, it's pretty obvious that it's going to cost a whole lot more than that, especially if Council has to do the road, Rotapi, Hilton Terrace. Would you really classify it as a MSQ funded project when clearly Council's going to have to spend quite a bit of money on it? Director Walsh: The only way I can answer that is Council has not currently allocated any funds to the construction of this project. So it's not in our 10-year capital works program. So Council hasn't made a decision to fund it at this point. In the event that the costing came back more than what the State Government
04:48:00 have allocated, you know, they would need to decide whether they would increase their funding or whether they ask Council to actually fund the balance of it. Traditionally, the approach from Maritime Safety Queensland, as stated on their website, is that Council's traditionally fund the onshore components and they fund the overwater components such as boat ramps. But in this case to date, they have made an exception. They've been quite clear in their verbal communication to us that they're willing to fund onshore components, but it is unclear to what extent. And that's why we're articulating that risk in the report. Councillor Wegener: I'll just speak to it. I won't support the motion, and especially because when it comes to trailer traffic along Hilton Esplanade in front of the other houses, to me that's just the line in the sand. There's no way we're going to have boats going up and down that street in front of those poor houses. The amenity would be utterly shattered in the area. Mayor Wilkie: Good question. If this amendment gets up, given that MSQ wants to collaborate
04:49:00 with Council, will this preclude Council from actually giving MSQ any guidance on these points now that they've been deleted? Director Walsh: We've been very collaborative with MSQ and they're aware of most of these parameters from an officer to officer exchange, I'm just being honest. In terms of I think that the next steps of that would I really want MSQ to come to Council to present their next design rather than, you know, any sort of interpretation by Council offices. Councillor Phillips: False. Can I respond to most of the questions? No. So I will support it. DMP, one of the findings in DMP I'm reading was parking congestion. One of the notes is limited boat trailer parking availability. This is a very important issue for the community in Noosaville and Tewantin. It impacts the local residents, residential streets.
04:50:00 So I think it will be a welcome project to many. I will go through the list quickly. A, I believe it's MSQ's legislation that would dictate where we would sit with that. So I don't believe we should be preempting anything. We should wait for the findings of the consultation. B, we've included that in the Noosaville foreshore plan already to have both power craft provisions and the all abilities launching near the rowing club. So we did that in the last plan. C, the bridge. I don't believe this Council will ever approve more than two lanes in and out of Tewantin. So I can't ever see it being a multi-lane bridge. And I think we would have seen that information come through more significantly through the recent bridge works.
04:51:00 And given that it's 40 years, I think that, yeah, it will cost a significant amount more if we delay or stop putting provisions around that. When it comes to the shared pathway, I am very confused about that being considered when there was a hot debate about the people walking through the boat ramp at Noosaville foreshore plant. So that's, I'm happy for that to be taken out. Consideration of CIPTED. Well, for 10 years, I've worked in the space of crime prevention. So I've been one that has actually delivered many, many CIPTED design principles, recommendations, and not once in that 10 years have I ever been asked to do a boat ramp facility. So I'd like to know if there was actually any statistics on vandalism.
04:52:00 Usually it's because you look for CIPTED when there's trees or limited lighting and things like that. So it'll be an open space. So it actually meets CIPTED prevention design just by being a boat ramp, especially when people will be using it. So one of the other things you look at is common use. It reduces crime because people can afford it. And the environmental impacts and the considerations with G and H, I believe, sit with the Sunshine Coast Waterways Authority. So I would like to see them probably engaged when we get a plan back to us from MSQ. And with I, I think that that will come through. With the consultation, I'm a bit confused as to how this came to us in the first place. The notes I went back to from the workshop was that it was pretty much considered we weren't going to start dictating what we wanted early in the piece.
04:53:00 And that I felt even though there was definitely always, as always, different opinions around the table, my notes say that there was certainly enough support from councillors to go to consultation before we started finding a position. So I'm really uncomfortable starting to put in any provisions. And if we start with this, it should have many, many more lists included in it, not just picking and choosing the ones that we want to see. So I'm happy to support the amendment. Thank you. Speaker 5: Councillor Woodson. Councillor Wilson: Also happy to support the amendment and, in fact, planned to move the same amendment. We don't have a council position. We discussed that in the last workshop that we don't have a position. Therefore, we shouldn't be putting forward a position. And I'm really uncomfortable with a list of items going that council seeks for MSQ to include in the design. It's not our position to include all of these things in the design. We don't have a position because we haven't had community consultation yet.
04:54:00 We also talked about this is MSQ's project and they should be the ones to be spending the money to further this. We shouldn't be using ratepayers funds to be furthering this project. So MSQ will do their own community and stakeholder engagement. We will, of course, get access to that engagement. And at that point, we should we should decide on our position. And if there are deal breakers in the designs that come to us that's not consistent with the community feedback, then that's when we should be fighting that battle. But no. It's not putting preemptive and they're not conditions. But it does say six for MSQ to include in its ongoing design work. And those haven't been agreed with councillors. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. What is the risk if these are removed?
04:55:00 And secondly, what is the benefit of them being in there? Like, I guess, are they an integral part of this report? Like, what's going to be the consequence if they're removed from the report? Is there any risk? Director Walsh: Thank you for the question. We won't be advocating for these particular, if this is removed from the report, we won't be advocating for any of these particular design parameters. We'll just let MSQ come up with the design and go to community consultation and then report back. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Just a question. You say this is an ongoing collaboration with MSQ. Are they already approved? Are they already aware of these issues? Director Walsh: They already are verbally aware of these issues. But just repeating my previous statement, we certainly won't advocate for them any further. If this is the direction the council wishes to head. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. Some statements were with you.
04:56:00 This is MSQ's responsibility. From their website, MSQ's is responsible for the development of the development of the system for improving maritime safety for recreational crafts through regulation and education. They're responsible for minimising vessel source waste and responding to marine pollution. And they're responsible for providing essential maritime services such as aides to navigation of vessel traffic services and encouraging and supporting innovation in the maritime industry. So if you're MSQ, that's what you're planning for. It's our role to take account of the many integrated, complex skills that are required to get this done. To remove this is saying, open this later because we don't really want to have a good design issue. Now, I can think of one state government development where it cost them a heap because they didn't ask council early enough and they built a boat ship down at Moton Point that took years to resolve.
04:57:00 Huge cost for retrofitting because they failed to consider the local design parameters first. That's what MSQ did. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm not willing to do that. These are all reasonable things. So MSQ is one part of the transport department. Another part of the transport department has identified the state level significance act of transport link. It is perfectly reasonable to bring to their attention that we want that link there. It's been in our planning. It's been in our cycle walking strategy. It's been in our corridor study for years. So to suggest we haven't got a position on that is incorrect. We have got a very clear position and announced in all our planning that we have the major corridor for walking and cycling coming through that part. It is no greater or lesser importance to get that planning right than it is for both parts. The fact that last week we heard because of failure to do good long term planning we have
04:58:00 prevented progress. From doing a temporary breach to alleviate traffic problems in Tewantin should bring alarm bells if we don't put in C. Staff are clearly telling us that the design life is still decades away but we need this area to allow for effective long term planning for access in Tewantin. That's really essential. That's probably one of the biggest ones that we need to point out to them because that if you are planning for both. You won't think about having to replace that bridge in 30 or 40 years time. You want to look at what can we do best to get the most number of car parts to get them with the money we've got. Look at D. We were being lobbied on this by the Hilton Esplanade residents years ago. So as a councillor I want NSQ to know that and as a councillor we've gone down this position
04:59:00 that we have already adopted in our Cycling Walking and Way Strategy and our Corridor Study that Hilton Esplanade should be designed so it's safe for pedestrians and for cyclists. Increasing that street for use with boats and trailers is contrary to our adopted position in our plans. So I want NSQ to know that. That there's a potential conflict there. So I want NSQ to know that. That where our preference is, is to reduce that conflict by having a new access. If we look at septet, there may not be any septet issues but if I remember the report also identified there's no street light infrastructure in this location at the moment. So are we, are boats going to be landing there all year tonight? Do we construct the car park and then find it as council's responsibility later on and then rate those funds for lighting?
05:00:00 These are things that should be considered. These are things that should be considered early in the process. And of course the area is highly degraded at the moment. There's no doubt about it. But GNH is at the core of what this accounts to stand for. When we do any development along the river, we always want to increase the environmental benefit from it. So I think it's really important that we just put that in our mind. Yes, we understand there's a commitment to boat trailers but it shouldn't come at the cost of getting them done. We want to make sure that we have a better river frontage, a more active frontage for all users and one that addresses the long term implications of the fact that it's our most flood prone area in the urban part of the Shire. So we have to think about that. So to me, they are our design parameters. MSQ and the Minister had the final decision but I think we would be remiss in our responsibilities to council of not saying if this was council development, these are the things that should
05:01:00 be done. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillors, I'm not going to support the amendment. I appreciate the intent of it in that ultimately MSQ will put out a design for public consultation. But it would almost, I see it almost as an abrogation of councillors' responsibility not to put out a design for public consultation. I would like to see the action of the council of not putting out a design for public consultation. Whether they adopt it or not is entirely their call. But we've, Council has fulfilled its responsibility by raising these issues and having them discussed on their merit with the ultimate decision maker, MSQ.
05:02:00 Of course, the fact whether we want a boat ramp there or not is beyond question. It is already a boat ramp. There's money for work to be done. I'd like to see it done sooner rather than later but to a standard that takes, that is responsible and takes into account many of these elements as long as they don't delay the process overly much. I think it's just responsible engagement with the ultimate decision maker to have these still on the table for staff to discuss them in a collaborative spirit going forward. Councillor Phillips: Can I ask a question to the CEO, please? Probably just need to understand our workshops a little bit better given that it takes a lot of our time and it definitely has got better over the last sort of six months.
05:03:00 But I probably need to understand now what our workshops do and in relation to. Mayor Wilkie: I think, I think it's a question about workshops is relevant to. Councillor Phillips: It'll be about this because I have. Mayor Wilkie: What can you make specifically to this case? Councillor Phillips: The minutes that I took from the workshop in relation to this do not align with what's in front of us. So I just need to understand what the purpose of the workshops are, not that it's a decision making, but probably more for the community to see that we raise things off camera and we're presenting the things that. Question. So the question is purpose of workshops. Speaker 2: Thank you for the question. The purpose of workshops is to go through the information so that we get an understanding and a direction or a feeling for where, for where things need to go in terms of reducing After the workshops, if we're preparing a report, then as officers, we talk about that and get an understanding of what we think needs to come to council.
05:04:00 My understanding coming out of that workshop is that the whole idea was it is to make this a status report, basically to say this is a MSQ, make it well known that this is an MSQ project. However, also, we talked in that workshop about a number of things that we talked about or looked at as officers that were potential things that we should be looking to include. Now, we can leave this out, but the risk is it's going to come back later, it's going to delay the project. Whereas if we go ahead with it, put some things in there, they're considerations only, they're really things that they've got to look at. Otherwise, they'll come back with a design, we'll then go back with our considerations. And for mine, it potentially could delay the project even further. So that was the intent of this, is really just to try to get ahead of the game. But that was my understanding coming out of the workshop. The workshop is really to give us a feeling of where we think and what we need to do. It's absolutely your prerogative if you want to take them out now, that's your call.
05:05:00 We're putting up what we think is what came out of those workshops, all our feelings and things that need to be put there. Just a follow-up question then. Councillor Phillips: Because some of these were definitely identified in the notes that I have, but some of them have been left out. So I just want to understand how it gets to a point for a report where some are included and some aren't. And what it is, what's required as a counsellor for me to actually have my voice from a workshop into it. Because some are in here and it's been chosen some, but not all of them. So I really need to understand now how we get to a position where we decide what goes in a report. Well, there's no ballots. It's a question now. Speaker 2: Do you want me to answer this one? Okay. Look, I guess this is a selection from us that we think are the ones that we thought were most pertinent coming out of that workshop. But that's, again, the idea of bringing it to report. If you want to add or subtract, that's your call.
05:06:00 If there's something in there that you think we've missed, please put it in. We get amendments on a regular basis. So if that's the case, surely we don't capture everything. But the intent of this really, so here's the status, here's some considerations, MSQ is your job. We want you to go off and do the consultation and then report back to council when you've got further information. So that was the whole intent of this report. So if it's got a little bit skewed, then we can apologise for that. But that was the intent. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Any other councillors who speak to the amendment? Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yes. I acknowledge this is a status report to just provide an overview. My question is, as part of the MSQ engagement, does council have opportunity to make a submission to MSQ as part of the community engagement consultation process? So I guess, like, if this is removed, can council officers put forward, like, a package that becomes part of MSQ's community consultation?
05:07:00 And it can be considered through that process, you know, to avoid risk if it's removed from the report and it needed some significant, you know, contribution through our status report that we miss opportunity if we remove this. Director Walsh: Thank you for the report. It's certainly the same way that the previous recreational study was released, you know, the public and council made a submission based on resolution of council about concerns for traffic and the like. So that's certainly an opportunity at that time. But I can't speak for the content and the breadth and the style of MSQ's consultation program. We have no awareness of how they're intending on approaching that at the moment. But if there's an opportunity to make a submission, of course we can make a submission. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Okay. Can anyone else speak to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close?
05:08:00 Councillor Lorentson: I will. And I'm going to start by just repeating what Amendment D says. And Amendment D says that we request the matter to be reported back to council for further consideration of the proposal after MSQ's community and stakeholder engagement and consultation findings, at which point council will then consider its position on design matters that are already listed between A and I. So it's not saying none of those issues will resurface. It's just saying let's understand what consultation means. Consultation is you consult first, then decide, not decide, and then consult. So I also want to bring to, you know, to everyone's attention, I think it was yesterday or a few days ago, there was a news article that made, I think, state news in Mackay vote rank, that the boaties in Mackay were in a similar predicament that we are very, very limited car trailer partners.
05:09:00 There were parking spaces and lots of registered vessels. There had enough, and I can just see that we are actually going to get you that as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I want to introduce a new material that I might reply, it's not appropriate, I don't understand the orders. Councillor Lorentson: You can introduce those when you talk to them, it's just a short motion. So councillors, at the end of the day, I think this comes down to a simple test. Are we to help the boaties, or are we here to manage them? They fought for this money, they didn't ask council to redesign the river frontage, order the shared pathway, solve climate adaptation policy. They asked for somewhere to park a trailer, 5,156 registered vessels, 39 car trailer spaces. That's the entire problem in one sentence, and it's the only problem this $2.5 million was ever meant to solve.
05:10:00 Every limitation that we put onto this project is another chance for it to stall, another year boaties wait, another excuse for further consideration should become no consideration at all. We've watched this happen since 2022, four years of studies, versions and reports, and the parking numbers have gone backwards, not forwards, 70 spaces down to 45, down to 16. If we keep adding our own limitations on top of that, we will talk this project into the ground before a single trailer park ever gets there. MSQ are the experts, let them run their consultation, let them do their job. Our job is not to write the design brief, our job is to get out of the way of the people who actually deliver this, and to hold the line on the number one thing that matters, which is enough parking to meet the demand we already know exists.
05:11:00 So my message to the councillors around here, please support the amendment, let's trust the state process, let's trust the experts, and above all, let's trust the boaties who fought for this funding to know what they actually need. Let's not bury this project in conditions and restrictions, let's just build some extra car trailer parking spaces. Mayor Wilkie: I'll put the amendment to those in favour. Councillor Lyon. Mr Morrison, Phillips, Finzel and Wilson. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Wilkie and Stockwell. The amendment is carried, becomes part of, reshapes the original motion to which only Councillor Wilkie has spoken. Any other councillors wish to speak to the new motion? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, can I speak to it? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Well, I think this has been an ongoing process, engaging with the council.
05:12:00 The boaties and their voice matters. We've heard the figures. I'm satisfied that this can be packaged up and council can put their own submission in. I think, yeah, I think it's a good idea to let's move the project forward. Also noting also that the local councils play a crucial role in the development and management of recreational boating facilities, particularly in the construction of boat ramps. And they're also responsible for providing the land-based components of the facilities, ensuring that the infrastructure is safe and accessible for public use. This includes securing land, planning the layout and managing the process. And local council, as we've clearly heard, collaborates with MSQ and other authorities. I'm satisfied that the removal of this in the status report shouldn't put us at any risk. But the benefit would be that perhaps we can proceed forward with the opportunity to put our own package as part of the MSQ consultation.
05:13:00 So hopefully we can progress this forward and satisfy our river users that council is working hard to progress the matters before us. Councillor Wegener: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Wynon. Councillor Wegener: Just a quick question. So once it's built, who pays depreciation? Director Walsh. Director Walsh: I need to take that question on notice with the assistance of our finances. So it also depends on what assets are depreciatable as well. So it depends on the nature of the design. Can we ask the Director of Corporate Services? Would they hand the assets over to us like TMR have done that regularly with other assets, where they'd construct an asset and then they'd hand it over to us and then we'd be obliged to maintain it? Speaker 6: Yes, through the chair councils that would be in the process. So it would be a contributed asset and then that would balance in our asset register and we would be responsible for funding the depreciation.
05:14:00 Mayor Wilkie: Good question. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wynon. So I'll just speak to when, you know, happy that MSQ has taken such an interest and that we're going to end up with a new boat ramp hopefully. But when it says it's their money and it's their project, that's not entirely true because we're going to pay for it over and over again and all the repairs and all that. So it's not cheap. And it's not only their project. But hopefully it'll be a very nice boat ramp. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Wynon. I just have a couple of questions. And it's something I've been going to and fro with both the CEO and Director of Infrastructure. And it's in terms of the Lake Street, Tewantin boat ramp. And just want to just ask a couple of questions whether there's opportunity for shared use arrangement. I've been discussing if we could look at a hybrid version allowing car boat trailer parking before 9 o'clock and then general parking.
05:15:00 I think, Councillor Lorentson, that we're talking about the canala boat ramp. Mayor Wilkie: This is a whole new project that you're talking about. Councillor Lorentson: The report identifies the boat ramp. It's called the Tewantin Visibility Study, which actually identifies this hybrid version as an option. I just wanted to know whether I could have the question answered. Do you have the answer to that? Director Walsh: Yes, certainly. And it is identified as part of Council's previous resolution. And there's a reference to it in the actual report. Lake Street does have capacity to perhaps increase trailer boat numbers. But it would require a very complex and engagement program with lots of different stakeholders. So, for instance, the Marina uses for overflow parking. Visitors to the gallery use it as parking. And then the boat people use it as well. There's also remnant green space in the form of Martin Park, which is surrounded by car parking. And then adjacent residents as well. But there is capacity. But it requires a lot of engagement to actually try and realise that capacity with different stakeholders.
05:16:00 There are 13 shared sort of car parking trailer units down there at the moment, in addition to the permanent ones. That works quite well at the moment because the vast majority of time the boats arrive early in the day and occupy those spaces. And I'm talking about general days, not peak days. And then when they're not being used, then they're available later in the day for visitors to the Marina, to the Council chambers and the like. So it's a reasonable set up that works quite well for balancing needs. And it needs a very careful process to actually muck with that before you assume that they're available exclusively for boaties. Because many days of the year, there's no requirement for both trailer parking in that area. But there's high demand for other users. So hopefully that answers the question. But I don't want to understate the amount of engagement that that process would require. Councillor Lorentson: Can I perhaps ask a question to the CEO? Can we bring this matter to a workshop, Council workshop, to unpack what are the implications in terms of consultation, resourcing, enforcement, compliance?
05:17:00 Would you understand how feasible it is to introduce a high demand? Speaker 2: Look, if the other Councils want to do that, I'm happy to bring that to a workshop to discuss it further. But as the Director said, this is reasonably complex. When you raised it with us, that was my first impression is there are a number of players in this. And to be too prescriptive right now with the 9am and the whole bit is just how do we police it? How do we actually get it first up and then how do we police it? So there's a whole lot of components in all of that. I'm thinking because it is part of the original report that came to MSQ or via MSQ, then maybe something might come out of their engagement, community engagement. It says you need to do something down late and then it's less. I know that's a fact that that might help to compensate some of the car parking or trailer parking on the Vanilla side as well.
05:18:00 So it might come out of that. Councillor Lorentson: Hmm. Speaker 2: We can address it at that point. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: I'm comfortable to support this now that we've made the amendment. The main issue for me, I think, is that MSQ will be looking to maximise the number of trailer parking for powered boats. And I wasn't comfortable with having a Council position that asked for consideration of unpowered craft at the site. It's a conflict anyway. Having powered and unpowered at the same site. But this is supposed to be about parking for powered boats and trailers. And therefore, I didn't want us to have a predetermined view on having unpowered boats there as well. That is up to the community to determine in community consultation whether that's a preference.
05:19:00 Mayor Wilkie: Does this preclude staff giving advice if MSQ asks questions about Council's responsibilities for on-land management? Director Walsh: I don't think it precludes us giving advice, but I think we need to reference the nature of this conversation that Council didn't want us to project a particular thing. But they might ask us, well, there already is a shared pathway around this site, which there already is. You know, if we did this, would that be OK? So I think, you know, we're going to have to answer questions like that. We've got the opportunity to do a bridge setback this much and also achieve our goals. Is that satisfactory? I don't think that's going to change. But, you know, if Council resolves in this way, it would be very clear that we're not going to advocate for a particular outcome. Councillor Phillips: I'll speak to it quickly. I'm going to tell you a funny story. When I grew up, I'm allowed to approve any new material because I think it's the, I mean, talk to the motion. But in Tewantin growing up as a kid, we had a boat and we never used it.
05:20:00 So my dad said that, well, actually he sold it without telling us and said that if we want to go out on a boat, he will pay for us to hire one down on the river. And then if we did it, if we hired it enough times in the year, he would buy a boat back for us. We never bought another boat because my brother surfed and I did gymnastics. So we actually never ended up with a boat. I never got on a boat. So my husband paddles a surf ski most mornings when he isn't a sook because it's cold. And so this isn't actually about me. What I do is try and decide when there's a balanced decision around the table. We often are presented with so many other options at this table that meet the needs of our diverse community. But often when it comes to boating infrastructure, there is a firm line that it just isn't considered. And whether it's a boat, whether that's, you know, personal beliefs or whether it's history or whether it's, you know,
05:21:00 the things that have occurred prior to my time, I don't particularly care. The seat I sit in is not for me. So we shouldn't be advocating for something that suits us. The boaties have made it really clear that they would really like this. The only thing I can tell you I have done as a police officer is attend multiple complaints around Shire of trailers parked in residential streets. I've even been to car accidents where people have, you know, driven into one. There is a demand in my experience that we would need trailer parking. I think that's what they've been advocating for. I don't believe it's up to us to sit in this table and decide what people do in their recreational time. I don't come to you Tom and say don't go for a surf in the morning. I don't ask the man not to go for a run in the morning. I think it's very important that we listen to the wide range of our community from different views and find somewhere in the middle. I'm really happy to support the amendment because it's very much how I walked out of the workshop,
05:22:00 feeling clear that we would just say to MSQ can you do the consulting and then we will make a decision after that. So I feel very comfortable with where it's landed now and time will tell what consultation tells us and then we can make the decision after that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's all. I want to move an amendment. And that is to insert a new item D and remember the subsequent item to read. Request MSQ undertake community engagement prior to the determination of a preferred layout. Councillor Lorentson: Through you Chair. I'm confused. Can I ask Councillor Stockwell to explain what he's requesting? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: At the moment we don't know what sort of community consultation that MSQ is doing.
05:23:00 A range of the discussions around here were based on the belief that the consultation process may be able to get these broad different opinions coming in from the rest of our community. This amendment makes sure that it's not just here's our preferred layout give us comment type consultation. We want to say that all those issues from other than the key stakeholder group of the voting community get to have their opinion before they determine what their preferred layout is. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, you cannot actually move. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I can't. I'll just raise that as an issue then. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Can I ask a question to the Director? Yeah. Is MSQ planning on doing the consultation before the preferred layout? I thought that was what was going to happen anyway.
05:24:00 Director Walsh: I can't speak for MSQ's consultation program. They haven't shared that with us. Mayor Wilkie: So it's up to other councillors if they see this as a fair way to go proceed and they want to move it instead or not. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm just talking to the motion. So I'm just talking to the motion as it stands. So if we look at the motion, there's nothing you can really take objection to. However, I'm very mindful of the fact that my experience with MSQ trailer parking proposals is it can raise a significant level of concern across the broader community. And the motion, as it currently sits, really reflects the opinion of the majority of councillors, which is we'll come in and up to what we see in the community settings.
05:25:00 I don't know whether I can be party to that. I do have very strong views and they align very strong, you know, clearly with the sentiments within the staff report. You know, it is a major opportunity to create a, you know, a great entry into Nurseville, one that is, you know, a great entry into the community. There's, you know, been neglected over the years and has had a lot of informal use. There's a range of issues that, you know, this could be a really good upgrade for that park that achieves multiple objectives while not impacting on the local residents. But this motion in no way leads council to having a voice in achieving that outcome. At the moment, my concerns is that the consultation is coming from a very low level of concern. It's a very one-sided perspective. From my understanding, it's heavily reliant on voting groups talking to MSQ. We know that the infrastructure is for them and it's quite reasonable, but if the consultation
05:26:00 process isn't one that has real opportunity to affect the design, I've got great concerns about the ability of this council to achieve the multiple objectives that that shot should be coming. And so without those lists of design parameters being stated, I can't support motion. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Can I try a moment? Yes. It's quite short. The council request MSQ consider the feedback council has received in the consultation on the Hilton Esplanade project. Thank you. Director Walsh: Thank you. Councillor Wilson: To the Chair. Director Walsh: I've sort of been liaising with community services and also corporate governance. There are privacy concerns because we haven't gathered that feedback for the purposes of
05:27:00 sharing with MSQ. So we just don't want to speak on behalf of the community in the way we use that information. We can certainly alert those stakeholders to MSQ's community engagement program when it becomes available. So I'm very happy to offer that. Mayor Wilkie: Can I ask a question? Could broad themes be discussed in a way that doesn't impinge on anyone's privacy? Director Walsh: We have actually already discussed that theme with them, that we have received opposition from local residents. They did request a copy of all of those submissions and we've said unfortunately no because we would be breaching privacy because we haven't gathered that information for the purposes of their use. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: If the information was scrubbed in a way that didn't reveal identities and only spoke in terms of broad themes of what the consultation has revealed, would that be possible? Director Walsh: I'd need to take that on notice, Councillor.
05:28:00 I can't answer that on behalf of community engagement and also corporate services. So I can't answer that immediately at the meeting. Mayor Wilkie: Understood. Councillor Wilson: Okay. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson? Councillor Wilson: Yeah. I think that's good advice. But if the information's been shared at a thematic level or will later be made public anyway, then that would give a job. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: We have a seconder for the... I'm happy to lay it back. Happy to lay it back. Yes. Speaker 6: Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: I guess maybe I could test an amendment because I think the risk could be that we don't... the gap isn't... we don't know what MSQ engagement is going to be. So if they limit that to maybe just one group, then the broader community sounds like they won't have a say. That could be the risk. Maybe I can try an amendment.
05:29:00 Can we request MSQ to... To broaden the community consultation to include... To include others outside of the voting group? I don't know. I'm just thinking like... I'm just trying to go... How do we direct them to make sure that it's inclusive? Mayor Wilkie: So currently it says, request MSQ to broaden the community consultation to include others outside the voting community. Councillor Finzel: I mean, I guess I'm... Is that... Mayor Wilkie: Is that the intention of your...
05:30:00 Your intention? Councillor Finzel: The intention is that, like, we've just heard around the table that those broader aspects outside of just, say, the parking, the money for the parking or the infrastructure of the water, is their voice heard? Mayor Wilkie: Good question. Is someone willing to second this? So we can test it. Oh, I'll take it. Second it. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Finzel, you have the floor. Councillor Finzel: Well, I think I pretty much covered the intent of the idea. We understand that the... You know, we... I want to acknowledge that the voting group, we worked really hard to get this in place. We've done a lot of work to get this funding to address their absolute need for, you know, further trailer parking. We've all heard that argument around the table. But having done that, I don't want to then, like... If there's a gap that we then close down the voice of other people, that their voice matters
05:31:00 around that as well. I'm just trying to protect equity at the table, that everyone can have a say, especially when we're not doing the engagement. We've all agreed that MSQ should get on with the job. We're happy for them to do that. But ensuring that collectively everyone in the Shire that wants to have a voice will be heard. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. It's carried. It becomes part of the substantive motion. Any other councillors wish to speak to the... Could we have a look at what appears on the slide now, please, Cathy? Okay.
05:32:00 Mayor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to this one? Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson? I'll make a motion. I'll make it really brief. I've spoken enough. But I do want to just focus on something that was raised before by Councillor Stockwell that the risk of omitting C. I'm going to start by, I'm going to make this so brief, what consultation means for me. It's a process and it's a process about genuinely asking and considering views and feedback of all the relevant stakeholders. And the amendment E, including others outside the voting community, considering their views and feedback, and then making a position. And I want to also add that to here also around the table, that whether we're having a workshop or not, and our feedback is invited, we hope that decision isn't made.
05:33:00 That disregards or is made before we're consulted upon. So none of those items that are in C are necessarily going to be omitted. My guess is they're going to be raised as part of the consultation process. Again, that is the correct order. Consult, then decide. So I'm happy with the amendment that sits in front of us. I think that respects due process. And again, I'm happy with the amendment that sits in front of us. And again, it respects the people that really fought hard for this funding. Our voting community. Again, I want to acknowledge our former mayor who helped with the funding. And it also respects that MSQ should lead this project. So this has my full support. Thank you.
05:34:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I think we've arrived at a good spot. As has been said, MSQ are the project leads on this. They are responsible for on-water activities. Council has responsibilities for land-based activities. And the report was entirely appropriate in that it transparently mentioned all the considerations raised to date by the staff in their good faith negotiations or collaboration with MSQ. And staff are obliged, have obligations as officers to raise these issues as part of their responsibilities. There was nothing in the original recommendation that implied that Council was mandating or dictating or doing anything except raising issues for MSQ's consideration before going out to public consultation about this project.
05:35:00 And there's nothing to suggest that any of us are dictating what anyone else ought to do. Yes, many of us are not voties, but we appreciate the enjoyment that they get from their form of recreation. They're not hurting anyone. They're deriving a lot of pleasure for themselves and their families and friends. It's a great activity to be engaged in. What we have for us now is a resolution that hopefully will expedite MSQ's actions and get to community consultation as quickly as possible. Community consultation that will involve the broader community. And hopefully get us quickly to a place where the final result takes on board the concerns of the Hilton Terrace, Hilton Esplanade residents as well,
05:36:00 because they're our people as well, living very close to this project and the broader community. And Council will also have an opportunity to have input into the process. But... Yeah, I think it's been a good debate. Some good principles have been raised. And I just like to acknowledge the collective wisdom that's allowed us to arrive at this outcome. We've got to respect the majority of the decision. Diversity of views around the table. We have to really believe that they result in the best outcomes that I do. So, I'll be supporting this motion as it stands. Speaker 6: I'll put the motion. Mayor Wilkie: Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson, Wegener, Phillips, Finzel, Wilson and Wilkie.
05:37:00 Against? Councillor Stockwell? 6-1. Well done. Speaker 6: I haven't done that for a while now. Mayor Wilkie: That's good. Okay. Next item. Thank you, Director Watt. Thank you. Thank you. 13.2. Financial Performance Report. We have Financial Performance Manager Zach Morton-Adair for this report. And Director Gatt. Welcome. Speaker 6: That's what we're going to say. Good afternoon, Councillors. Councillor Lorentson: Afternoon. Speaker 6: Good afternoon. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Speaker 5: Hello. Hey. Thank you. And through the Chair. Thank you. I take the report as read. Yeah. The June report presents Council's interim full year financial position to the 30th of June 2026 against the revised budget for the 2025-26 financial year. There are no identified financial risks expected to negatively impact Council's forecasted position as at 30 June. It is important to note that the results remain subject to year-end financial adjustments for Council's final 2025-26 financial performance to be reported following completion of the
13.2 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT JUNE 2026 ¶
05:38:00 annual financial statements and the independent audit process. As at the 30th of June, Council reported an unfavourable net result to budget of $10.9 million. This comprises a favourable operating result of $4.6 million, offset by an unfavourable variance of $15.5 million relating to capital funding. Despite this, and it's important to note that is the comparison to our underlying budget, Council, when looking at its actual performance, recorded a favourable actual net result of approximately $38 million when including capital revenues. I would like to draw attention to matters detailed in the report itself. Operating revenue was $158 million, representing 103% of the full year's budget. The favourable revenue position is primarily driven by higher-than-anticipated interest received and operating grant subsidies and contributions.
05:39:00 Our operating expenditure was $153.6 million, representing 100.2% of the full year's budget. The overall operating variance remains within a narrow range of budget, with expenditure movements broadly offsetting across categories. The $4.6 million favourable operating result comprises $2.4 million of operating surplus from Council's core operating activities and $2.2 million operating surplus from Council's business activities. Waste management reported a net operating position of $3.9 million of surplus, and a net operating position of $2.5 million, with our holiday parks reporting an operating surplus of $922,000, compared to a budget of $768,000. The business activities results include competitive neutrality adjustments, and are presented to support transparency under the National Competition Policy Reporting Framework. Variances in both operating revenue and expenditure are consistent with the trends and verbal
05:40:00 updates that have been provided by me in previous meetings. Details on these variances can be found in the National Competition Policy Reporting Framework. The report is important to note that many of Council's major revenue and expenditure categories have remained closely aligned with budget estimates, with several reporting outcomes within 1% of the actual budget. While all revenue and expenditure categories are currently reported, this level of detail can sometimes make it more difficult to identify the matters that warrant closer attention or further inspection. As part of Council's commitment to continuous improvement, Council officers will review opportunities to simplify and enhance the financial reporting to put a greater focus on where material variances are, emerging risks, and key areas that require management action. This approach will also help ensure financial information is transparent and compliant, while making it easier for the community to focus on the issues that have the greatest impact to our financial performance and service delivery.
05:41:00 Capital revenue of approximately $33 million to the 30th of June 2026 was mainly comprised of $30.3 million of capital grants and subsidies, and $2.6 million of contributions from developers. Capital grants and subsidies remain dependent on grant conditions and capital works delivery, as development and contributions continue to be inherently timed to development, both directly outside of Council's own control. Capital expenditure was $40.8 million, representing 50.5% of Council's $80.8 million budget. Re-profiling of the 25-26 budget occurred through standard budget processes, referred to as Budget Review 2. Any carry-forward balances relating to the 25-26 Capital Works Program will be identified and addressed through Budget Review 1, which is currently scheduled for August 2026. Other capital expenditure and works-in-progress adjustments reflect due diligence and periodic analysis to support the timely recognition and classification of reviewed capital assets.
05:42:00 Total cash on hand as at 30 June 2026 was $139.7 million, with $7 million held in trust. Of the total cash balances, $30.7 million was externally restricted, with a further $25.3 internally restricted. As a result of Council's final cash position, our approved borrowings of $3.1 million were not drawn down. Council's total cash holdings were $33.7 million, or 34% above the budget. The total cash holdings were $3.7 million, or 34% above the budget. The stronger cash position reflects the net impact of capital delivery timing, brief program of capital works, our opening cash balance, and higher anticipated interest revenue. Council's investments continue to perform above agreed benchmarks, with our June 2026 result of our weighted average investment yield reported at 5.15% against a benchmark of 4.11%.
05:43:00 Rate Arrears as at 30 June. We're totaled $8 million, or 6.8% of Council's rates in the utility charge base. Arrears decreased by $492,000 from May 2026. This movement is consistent with the established six-month post levy pattern, with balance increases after the July and January rates levy periods. To the end of June 2026, Council has recognised $1 million in interest payments on overdue rates and utility charges. As part of our quarterly rolling program, our measures of financial sustainability are included in the report. It is notable that all reportable ratios exceed the target thresholds and any changes in them are effectively driven by the updates I've provided verbally to you all today. In previous reports, we have included a section of questions taken on notice for the General Committee. From the main ordinary committee meeting, questions taken on notice have either been brought back to councillors or will be brought back as part of separate workshops.
05:44:00 In closing, the June result remains an interim financial position and is subject to end-of-year financial and accounting adjustments. These matters will be captured to the preparation of council's financial statements and external audit processes, with the final audited financial statements and year-end performance to be presented to council, when November 2026. Thank you, and I'm happy to take your questions. Now, Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I can't resist. Operating expenditure. There's a variance there of 666. That doesn't mean we've gone to hell. That means our interest rates are lower than what we anticipated. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Therefore, we've saved that much money. Is that correct? Speaker 5: Thank you. Just can I ask clarification with a reference to 666? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's in the operating expenditure variance of city to June table, just under the title.
05:45:00 Speaker 5: Could I have a page with me? Sorry, councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, we don't have pages. Speaker 5: We need to get it in a table. In a table. Okay, thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, sir, councillor. Speaker 5: So, with respect, that's in regards to, through the chair, our finance costs. The 666 is purely coincidental. And the lower than anticipated interest card is related to, we have planned external borrowings at the start of each financial year, and then based on our cash performance tied to also our delivery or need to draw down loans, that can vary. So, our loan borrowings during the 25-26 financial year were lower than anticipated. So, consequently, our finance costs were lower than anticipated. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And just because we're on that table, the work in progress adjustment, which is sort of. Yeah, most of that, again.
05:46:00 Can you explain that, please? Speaker 5: Happy to. So, as part of, it was one. Through the chair, sorry. Continually throughout the year, our capital delivery program looks, progresses. Part of that is what we do is we periodically review completion, the finalization of projects. Most capital projects have a proportionate balance of both operational and capital expenditure. So, as we move throughout the year and identify that, they're effectively the capital expenses. Councillor Lorentson: I just have a question and I'm happy to move also the motion, but my question is in terms of disaster recovery work,
05:47:00 that it's running about 5.3 million behind where it should be. And probably my question is... Sorry. Oh, excuse me. So it's been a long day. So disaster recovery work is running at about 5.3 million behind where it should be. And I think when I read the report, it was one of the key financial health scores that we missed its targets by quite a bit. So my question is, and maybe a question to the CEO, if we're still catching up from past disasters and something happened tomorrow, do we actually have enough staff to handle a new disaster if we're still finishing old recovery work? Do you want to clarify that? Speaker 5: Yeah, I could provide just comments. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to respond. Thank you very much. Speaker 5: Yeah, I could allude to the fact of what the finance has reported and maybe leave the balance of the disaster recovery to the CEO.
05:48:00 So in reference to the distinction of whether it was behind or ahead of budget. So all the finances in front of you determine is that the actual expenditure this year was lower than what was anticipated. That doesn't necessarily inherently mean that it's been slower. It's just mean the actual expenditure was lower. So in previous years, I believe there was some front loaded expenditures. So they were actually delivered the project ahead of time at that point. So I wouldn't draw the distinction in the numbers there that it means it's slower than anticipated delivery. It's just the actual costs have been slower than what was budgeted. Mayor Wilkie: Do you know what I mean? It means it's not delayed. Speaker 5: I wouldn't draw that kind of timing. Speaker 6: And through the chair, I could just make some additional comments. Sometimes the timing between when we actually get invoices and process invoices throughout a year is delayed through our contractors. And so therefore, the costs are not within our system. And sometimes those things are out of our control. Whilst we obviously work diligently with our contractors
05:49:00 who are delivering our disaster recovery works, sometimes there is some slowing of that. Yeah, that's another factor that goes into it as well. Speaker 2: Do you want to answer this question? Councillor Lorentson: Probably, yeah, maybe the question that I'm... that I'll ask is in terms of resourcing, is that a risk? And I'm going to probably pull out, you know, our infrastructure, disaster management and asset operations. Like, to me, they're the critical departments. Are we adequately, quickly resourced? And have we got the right people in the right positions to handle, for example, a disaster? Speaker 2: Yeah, so from a methodology point of view, with disaster management, and we've run out of other disaster, but... what we've adopted as a methodology is that we outsource, and it's fully funded by the QRA, so we outsource the actual contracting of the repairs. So we manage the contracts. So we have essentially one or two staff in here that do that.
05:50:00 And we're, you know, it's working exceptionally well in terms of I think a number of councillors are actually looking at us saying that's the role that we all want to adopt. So I'll cut to more. We've absolutely got the resources for that. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson, would you like to rephrase your eventual statement of FAP, which was, in fact, incorrect? About the council being behind a disaster management program? Councillor Lorentson: Oh, I thought that was clarified by Zach and Mark, but I'm happy that makes... No problem. So rephrase it as a question. Are we running behind or not? And I respect and thank the response. So that gives me a lot of confirmation. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Any other questions? Are you... Councillor Lorentson has moved the motion. We have a seconder. Councillor Lorentson: We have a seconder. Mayor Wilkie: Seconder, Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson?
05:51:00 Councillor Lorentson: Probably just once again, just a big thank you. I... The report is clear and detailed and open and transparent. And every month, I think, you know, it gets better and better. And I think it's been a really long day and I can't wait to go home. But, you know, I think our finances are really critical. We sit here as councillors. And it's a really big responsibility to ensure that what we're spending reflects our strategies, core businesses, and also reflect what community values and expects. And when I read through where we're putting our money, it often reads very well. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: I'll speak very, very quickly. Before the two of you came on board, I felt like my email,
05:52:00 I would get a lot of questions about finance. And the way you're reporting it is obviously working because it's not coming through my emails about me having to ask. So whatever you're doing now is obviously more transparent for the community. And I think that should be congratulated because, yeah, it seems like people can see what's going on in the reports and the way that you're reporting it to us. So thank you for that. Mayor Wilkie: Anyone else? Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: No, thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Zach. And thank you, Mark. Speaker 6: Wow. It's four o'clock. Mayor Wilkie: Now, I now move that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to Section 254J, 3G of the Local Government Regulation 212, for the purpose of discussion. Items 12.2, confidential, not for public release. I think it was a 12.1 that we moved also.
14 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION ¶
05:53:00 Item 14.1, confidential, not for public release. ERP, contract renewal. And B, pursuant to Section 254J, 3E of the Local Government Regulation 212, for the purpose of discussing. Item 14.2, confidential, not for public release. Planning and Environment Court Appeal D927 of 2025. Can I have a seconder? Seconder, Councillor Stockwell. All in favour? All in favour? That's carried. Speaker 6: Now, we have a confidential session, in which standing was still at five. Mayor Wilkie: But I would like to call for a five-minute coffee break. Five minutes only. Speaker 6: I couldn't tell you. I haven't lost anything. I can do this. Can you park me in a cold place? Can you park me in a cold place?
05:54:00 I know, that's what I'm doing. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, yeah, no problem.
14.1 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - ERP CONTRACT RENEWAL ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
14.2 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL D927 OF 2025 - APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR BUILDING WORKS (DWELLING HOUSE) AND REFERRAL AGENCY PLANNING (BUILDING HEIGHT, GROSS FLOOR AREA, SETBACKS, AND CUT) AT 58 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH ¶
06:29:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 5: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you.
12.2 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - NOOSA PLAN 2020 DRAFT AMENDMENT 4 - EMPLOYMENT LAND (Referred from the General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 - Item 8.1) ¶
06:30:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The question is that Council note the confidential report by the Principal's Strategic Plan to the General Committee Meeting 7 July 2026 regarding Land Progressing Amendment to the Planning Scheme relating to Employment Land B, proposed to amend Notice of Plan 2020 in the Quarters of the Planning Act 216, the process prescribed in Section 18, Notice and Attachment 1. C, submit proposed Amendment 4 to the Notice of Plan 2020 in Attachments 3, 4 and 5 to the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning for State Interest and Review, with the following changes to the Amendment and associated plans. A, remove high-impact industry as a consistent land use in Table 5511, Industry Zone, due to sites being located in the water catchment area. B, provision for future public transport and road infrastructure connections, including bus stops. C, provision of infrastructure for e-vehicles charging on site.
06:31:00 D, provision of adaptable infrastructure that is future-proof for energy transition, emerging technologies, renewable energy integration and storage and electrification capacity. And D, concurrently with B, undertake public notification. A, community consultation in accordance with the Communications Plan and Attachment 2. E, authorise the CEO to make further changes to propose Amendment 4 of the Minor Nature Priority Commencing Community Consultation. And F, following State Interest Review and Community Consultation, report back to Council on the outcomes. Happy to move it. Seconded by Councillor Wilson. Any discussion? I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Next item. Someone like to take this one on? Say it in my voice. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to move the recommendation that Council A, note the report by the ICT Manager to the Ordinary Meeting dated 16 July 2026, be pursuant to Section 235.
06:32:00 I've just put the original recommendation in the chat. Speaker 6: Okay, Wendy. Speaker 2: This is an amendment, yeah, I wonder if we have time. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. The pursuant to Section 235A of the Local Government Regulation Award Contract CM25188 to Technology One Limited. C, pursuant to Section 2571 of the Local Government Act 2009, delegate to the CEO the power to negotiate, finalise and execute on behalf of Council a new enterprise resource program. And we have a second, please.
06:33:00 Mayor Wilkie: Councilor Phillips, any discussion? All in favour? That's unanimous. And item 14.2 is an easy one. So I'd like to move to Councilor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: Councilor A notes the report by the Manager Development Assistance that we're not meeting date. It's 16 July 2026 regarding Planning and Environment Court Appeal D92 of 2025 and B, Agree to Settle Appeal D92 of 2025 generally in accordance with the proposed conditions
06:34:00 outlined in Attachment 1 to the report. Mayor Wilkie: Seconded? I'll second. Councilor Wilson, thank you. All in favour? That's unanimous. The next ordinary meeting will be at Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tawantina, 10am on Thursday 21st. August 2026. Declare the meeting.