General Committee Meeting - 11 August 2026 Transcript

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING ¶

▶ 00:00:06

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

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶

▶ 00:00:19

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

3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶

▶ 00:00:27

00:01:00 That's unanimous. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr. CEO. Mayor Wilkie, if you could take over. Thank you, Mr. CEO. Thank you, councillors. So we begin by acknowledging that we're meeting on the traditional lands and waters of the Kabi Kabi people and we pay our respects to elders past, present and emerging. First item is confirmation of the minutes. I have a mover and a seconder for the minutes of the General Committee meeting. The meeting is being held on the 7th of July, 2026. I'm happy to move. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Seconded, Councillor Phillips. All in favour? That's carried. There are no presentations. We have no deputations. We have reports for noting. The first being the Capital Program 2025-2026 Delivery Status Report. And we have Aidan Flannery here today to give us a summary of that. And we also have Director Shaun Walsh online. Hello. Welcome. This is Laura. Speaker 2: Hello, Laura. Welcome.

4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶

▶ 00:01:25

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

4.1 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DATED 7 JULY 2026 ¶

▶ 00:01:31· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

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

7.1.1 CAPITAL PROGRAM 2025-2026 DELIVERY STATUS REPORT ¶

▶ 00:01:47· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

00:02:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 2: Good morning, everyone. Thanks for your time. So this report provides a status update on Noosa Council's Capital Works Program for the 2025-2026 financial year, excluding disaster recovery projects. The approved capital budget as per budget review was $50 million, including $11.5 million in carry-forwards. Actual expenditure at end of quarter four was $33.6 million, so that's now been updated to $34 million, representing 67% of the approved budget, with further commitments of $27.7 million. Grant funding revenue for the year was $15 million, with Council contributing $10.7 million to the year. In addition to these projects, excluding disaster projects, the Capital Program comprises of 122 projects at various stages of planning, design and delivery, with an average progress of 82%. Throughout quarter four of 2025-2026, the Capital Program 2026-2027 was developed by the Infrastructure Planning Team and was workshopped with Councillors, followed by formal adoption taking place in June.

00:03:00 Mayor Wilkie: Questions, Councillors? Councillor Lorentson: So just for clarification, note that the report talks about commitments at 123% of the approved budget. What does that mean for an organisation when commitments sit at 123% and how is the exposure being managed across the future years? Speaker 2: I understand that those commitments reflect to future years. So the 2026-2027 Capital Works Program. So, for instance, a project that was a contract awarded with construction occurring over two financial years would put that commitment above the current Capital Works Program allocated budget, noting that the budget would become available in a future year.

00:04:00 Mayor Wilkie: Any other councillors? Councillor Wegener. I follow. Councillor Wegener: I don't know what that looks like. It looks kind of funny sometimes, you know, such a carryover. But what I understand is at the end of the project, the final payment comes out. So there's sometimes a bit of a lag between, you know, we're paying for it as time goes on. But at the end, there's sort of the final balloon-esque payment. Is that right? Speaker 2: Yeah. I think sort of a forecast, a typical forecast is a bit of a bell curve with a slow sort of cost beginning. And then that ramps up through the middle of a project. And then you'd have the larger payments sort of come out. And then right at the end, you might have some smaller follow-up payments, so. But I think from last year with the $27 million in commitments set us up for a good position to really hit the ground running this financial year with those commitments ready to go.

00:05:00 Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Councillor Lorentson. One last question in terms of just governance. The report identifies quite a few risk, underspend over commitment, resourcing constraints. There's key personnel positions that have, that are not filled, land access issues, tight grant timeframes. Can you comment on that? Can you outline what sort of controls are in place to ensure that the 26-27 program is realistic, achievable and financially responsible? Speaker 2: Yeah, I suppose, so there will be a BR1 report coming through to the ordinary meeting next week, I believe, which we'll touch on that further. There was the, so adoption of the current capital year's budget, we would have talked

00:06:00 through a lot of that. We use our monthly Capital Works scheduling and reporting, which we do through the Capital Works Executive. And we're looking at different ways we can improve on that, including a traffic light assessment of resourcing, which we'll be reporting through CWE at the September meeting. Further to that, we are looking at reporting contingency as well. So, I believe, previously, we haven't done that. We haven't noted contingency within budgets. So, where we're looking at a $50 million budget per se, it might have a $2 million contingency. Where we never intended to spend that $50 million, we're aiming for a $48 million. So, we'll be coming, that's just a number I've made up on the spot now. But in the future, we'll be reporting on that contingency value. Fantastic. Mayor Wilkie: Someone care to move the- Councillor Phillips: I'm happy to move.

00:07:00 Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Seconded, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: Aidan, thank you. I will say, being Chair of Capital Works now, when these reports come through, I feel like I have something more detailed through a process. And this is not, this is more a comment about, it's for any Councillors wanting to come to CWE just to observe. It's really, for me, like, given me such a more better understanding of how the process in our infrastructure works. And I think the only thing I would love to see is how we communicate that more effectively with community. Because now I'm part of that, I sort of get so much more from it. And that is such a privilege to be in those meetings that community don't. So, I'm probably just going to make a comment about how we could communicate it together, that it celebrates some of the things that are working and more understanding around those carryovers that Tom just said, not everyone's watching online. So, yeah, it'd be good to see how we could improve our communications with it.

00:08:00 But Capital Works, anyone wanting to come, it's a really good meeting to see how it kind of comes through the Council and how it comes up to us. And yeah, it helps me feel like when I read this, I've got more understanding. So, thanks. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Do Councillors wish to speak to the motion? I'll congratulate you and your team for another big year. Capital Works is... is where the rubber really hits the road. We had a big program this year. I note that of the 122 projects, which is a lot for a small Council, average project progress, 82%, 63% of projects are over 90% complete, 88% of projects are over 50% complete. As Councillor Phillips says, we keep our finger on the pulse of how all these projects are progressing through the Capital Works Executive, make adjustments as needs be throughout the year. And some of these projects are big. Like the Croy Lake McDonnell Drive Residential Subdivision, the Croy Sports Complex Gymnastics

00:09:00 Upgrade and Multi-Purpose Area, the Kin Kin Wapunga Trial Woodenham Renewals, which are under construction, the Noosaville Gympie Terrace Changing Places Facility on Gympie Terrace, the Tewantin Lake Doonella Bridge Renewal, and the Doonan Landfill. There's a lot of work going on at the Doonan Landfill and a lot of our funds are being expended out there. And you're doing that with facing some staffing constraints like is being experienced by local governments across Queensland. So well done to your team for another good year. Speaker 2: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Phillips, you wish to close? Speaker 6: No, thank you. Mayor Wilkie: We'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Speaker 6: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Laura. Thank you, Rayton. Speaker 2: Sorry, I didn't introduce Laura properly. Laura is the new Project Controls Officer in the Infrastructure Planning Team. So welcome, Laura. Mayor Wilkie: Welcome, Laura. Thank you. Thank you, Laura. 7.1.2, the Housing Monitoring Report, and we have Rowena Skinner and Anita Lakeland

7.1.2 HOUSING MONITORING REPORT ¶

▶ 00:09:59· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

00:10:00 here to give us a summary, and Mr Glenn Conforti, welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 8: Thank you. Councillor Phillips, this report brings forward an update on the local housing measurables, highlighting how things have changed since the adoption of the housing strategy at the end of 2022 and the 2021 housing needs assessment that had informed the local housing strategy. Over the past four years, actions within the housing strategy have been implemented, including planning scheme reforms to encourage housing diversity and affordable rental accommodation, financial incentives for affordable rental accommodation and secondary dwellings, the voluntary cancellation of some 363 short-term accommodation licences,

00:11:00 the release of development-ready land for community housing at Cooroy, and successful advocacy for increased state investment in social housing, which could result in over a 30% increase in the number of social housing dwellings in Noosa Shire. This report shows that despite significant efforts, the housing challenges remain profound and is being shaped by economic and market forces beyond the control of local government. Council's sustained commitment, advocacy and collaboration across all levels of government, its partnership with the not-for-profit sector and its willingness to listen to experts in the designing, construction and management of housing remains important, as does building the community's acceptance of and capacity for greater housing choice so that Noosa remains a place where workers, families, older residents and vulnerable community members can access safety.

00:12:00 Councillor Phillips: Like is it affordable, social or key working, key worker housing? Speaker 8: There's some of all. The area, obviously social housing is limited to tenants that qualify for the social housing register. And we have, I think the report indicates around 90 households on that wait list at the moment. So that's a very...

00:13:00 The level of affordable housing needed is a lot more difficult to quantify because obviously there's a lot of people that have unmet housing needs right now in that they can't find a rental accommodation or can't find housing to suit their needs right now. But we have also had a great... We've had a great number of people living in housing stress where they're only, they're really struggling to make their rent payments or their mortgage payments in some cases. So they are potentially only one or two or three payments away from being in very serious problems. I can't tell you the number of people, certainly our social service support organisations are assisting many people.

00:14:00 With rent assistance or with other sort of family support, maybe helping with school payments or food or other things that, because they can't actually provide housing, they are providing other type of family assistance. So the quantum of households that aren't yet homeless or aren't sleeping rough, but are certainly in housing stress. So that's a large number. Councillor Phillips: A follow-up question is that how could we, how could we as council get more information in that space so we can really make sort of, is there things that we need to advocate for or like what's a way that we can get really accurate data around who's on that hospital flight? Speaker 8: It's very difficult to get very accurate data on that. Obviously tonight is a census. So...

00:15:00 People fill out the census, they put their household income, they will put what they're paying in rent, they will put what they're paying in mortgage payments. But by the time, so not all data becomes available at the same time. So we have current contemporary data on rents, what median rents are, and we get that data each, well certainly each quarter. But we don't have a handle on income levels until the census. So that's five years old. So while we subscribe to, I think there's still .id.com. Well, we subscribe to them and they have some of the data in here about incomes versus housing costs.

00:16:00 Some of the income data is not contemporary. So you're not necessarily comparing today's rents with today's income. It's just a very difficult area to get accurate contemporary data. Is that because the information comes from different lanes? Yeah, so some information comes from census, which is five years old. Some information comes from Department of Social Security. But you can't necessarily match that data with what their housing situation is. So it's a very complex area to try and get an accurate handle on. Speaker 6: And there's an 18-month lag between... When the census is taken tonight versus when we'll get the data.

00:17:00 Speaker 8: It starts, we will see the initial release at the end of next year. Councillor Phillips: Okay, I won't ask why that takes so long. Because you won't be able to, I'm just going to say it out loud. Councillor Lorentson: Castle Lawrence. Just in reference to the report, you mentioned about housing above car parks. And there's... There's a feasibility study on council-owned car parks. We've done some workshops here in council. That's going to be reported separately. Can we get an idea when? Speaker 6: We're hoping within the next two months, three months. We're just finalising... Well, we're getting the final output from that feasibility analysis, that peer review by a second party. And we're hoping we can get that reported to council in October. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Noosa Civic, Noosa Junction. You make reference in the report in terms of major district or business zones.

00:18:00 There are two big developments that are moving through the centre. And I'm talking about Stockwell, Noosa Civic and also the Bolts Club. Is that, will that information be captured at a later report? Or should it have been captured in this report because there's some significant... Speaker 6: It's a proposal at this point. I don't believe it's actually a development application at this point. So until it comes through council and approved, then it will be captured as approved dwellings. Councillor Lorentson: Lake MacDonald Drive, lot one is already locked in for 25 social housing and lots two and three, the report says they'll be planned to meet community needs, including housing. Is housing actually the plan or could it end up being parkland or something else? Speaker 6: Certainly housing will be a component of that, but you'll note that in resolving lot one, council also resolved to engage with the community more and look at a range of other community uses.

00:19:00 The purpose, the original purpose of the subdivision and also the funding associated with that that we got grants for was about the delivery of affordable housing. So it will certainly be a component of that, but there might be some other community uses around some open space or community facilities or something that may also be considered for the sites through community consultation and back through council. Councillor Lorentson: Short term letting is 475 short term rental approvals, 363 were cancelled and many returning these properties back to permanent rentals. Do we know how many and how many of those 363 just remain unoccupied? Speaker 6: I don't know.

00:20:00 Yeah. It's difficult to measure that one. Richard. Through the chair. Speaker 14: What we can advise is this is also based off our rate information as well. So our rates that converted from transitory back to PPR give us an indication of if they've reverted back to their primary base or not. PPR. I don't have the numbers up in terms of what a PPR versus what have gone back to non PPR. Speaker 14: But we can get that data. Right. So I'm assuming we have some of that information for us to share with you. Councillor Lorentson: That would be great. Thank you. Adopter worker. Chamber of Commerce first raised the concept of an adopter worker, I think back in 2022 in partnership with council. Is that something that we're still working with the chamber on? It may be a question to the CEO or economic development. Speaker 12: I think that's all I have to take that I know. Actually, the director's online, Kim.

00:21:00 She's not well today. So I'm not too sure if she's going to be able to answer that for you. Mayor Wilkie: Director Rawlings. Are you able to add any comment about the progress of the Adopter Worker Program or its status? Yeah. Speaker 7: Sure. Thanks, council. Excuse me. Excuse my voice. As a program itself, it hasn't advanced, but what has advanced is a number of different organisations in the community have taken up the opportunity to promote share housing as well as community housing providers doing similar things. And, you know, we know that social media plays an important role in house in matching, you know, spare rooms to workers and community members. So we have been tracking and looking at what's been happening kind of more organically.

00:22:00 Unfortunately, we went for a grant to get that program off the ground, and we weren't successful in the grant. So we haven't really been able to achieve the funding that was required to establish that program, unfortunately, because I do think it still has meant a lot to us. Councillor Lorentson: So, you know, there's a lot to be done. You mentioned something just then, Kim, about share your space. And I read just recently national research saying that Australia has around 13 million spare bedrooms and that's the main reasons people don't rent them out. They're worried about losing part of their pension and just concerned they're going to incur capital gains tax. Are we going to have to do that again? Are we actively looking at like this share your space campaign, which, again, you just touched on, but it's being really pushed across other local councils and states.

00:23:00 And I say it again. Yes, we are. Speaker 7: We are. We are. And in fact, we have put further detail and information and resources on our website. And maybe Rowena could talk to that a little bit more about what we are trying to encourage. Mayor Wilkie: I say she could because she has a voice. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you for being here, Kim. Thank you. Thanks, Kim. Sorry for asking so many questions. Speaker 8: We have had material on our website for at least a couple of years now about renting out rooms, sharing your housing to keep Noosa home. We also did quite a lot of work actively on researching what was being done. Anglicare and the University of Sunshine Coast were working in the space of, I guess, matching elderly people with spare rooms with young people.

00:24:00 That experience, for a number of reasons, has had some problems. We have when our previous housing officer was here. He did a lot of work in putting together ideas on a model and we did report it to the executive team. It didn't proceed because there was some concerns around risks of the model. But we continue to see what other organisations are doing in that space. It's a, as you alluded, it's a space that has a lot of fear and risks. And it's a space that has a lot of challenges. It's a space that has a lot of uncertainty in it, but it is happening organically. People that want to do it are already doing it, is the bottom line. They're doing it through church groups, networks, social media, through associations with employers.

00:25:00 So it is happening already. Councillor Lorentson: And I'm not 100% correct about this, but pensioners are worried about losing part of their pension. My understanding, there's been some recent changes in tax laws in terms of encouraging pensioners to actually open up their homes. Can you give us any information? I can't tell you anything. Speaker 8: When you say recent, I can't tell you anything within the last six months, for instance. I know that when we put the material on the website, we did download, basically, all of what the ATO said at that time. But we also suggested that individuals talk to their accountants before they embark, because I don't think it's our place to give financial advice.

00:26:00 Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Councillor Phillips. A couple more questions. I'm really interested to know how we capture the median rent. Do you actually research like that yourself, too? How do we get that data? Like, to get that data? You've got the median rent in Noosashire for a two-bedroom unit was $500. For a three-bedroom house, it was $600. Where do we get that? Speaker 8: That's published on the state. It's a website produced by the Queensland Treasury. Okay. And a link to that site is on our website as well. So, the Queensland Treasury publishes regional profiles for each local government area and each SA2 within the local government area. And you can just produce a report that will have the latest median rent. How are they getting that information? Through RTA? Yeah, through RTA. Okay. Awesome. So, the RTA will publish it based on suburbs postcodes and the Queensland Treasury then

00:27:00 create a local government figure for that. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Do we ever meet with, like, local – so, I understand that feeds up and down to us, but do we ever meet with local real estate agents? I know they've got their own – Yep. Speaker 8: We talk to – well, not meet with them necessarily, but we talk to them. We had one when we were preparing the housing strategy. There was a local property manager that was coming to our meetings and inputting a lot of valuable insight into it then. Okay. Through the process of researching the doctor worker. I know Ross had conversations with quite a number of local property managers as well. Councillor Phillips: So, yeah, we do have conversations with them. And then I probably just want to know specifically what the report tells us as a council to potentially

00:28:00 – does it tell us anything that we need to do differently to what we're currently doing now? Speaker 8: I think it tells you to continue to be committed in this space to make brave decisions where you need to make brave decisions and to just keep it front of mind, I guess, is what it's saying. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Councillors, I'm happy to move the motion. I'm happy to second it. Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Okay. Thank you. This latest housing monitoring report does highlight a range of actions already achieved since the housing strategy was adopted in November 2022, but also the work that still lies ahead of us in playing our part in addressing the national housing affordability crisis. It's widely acknowledged that many factors contributing to the situation are beyond the control of local government.

00:29:00 These include rising land values, escalating construction costs, labour shortages, high interest rates and cost of living pressures. They're all affecting the delivery of housing, not just in Noosa but across Australia. However, we will continue to use every means available to increase housing choice and support for more affordable housing for local people and key workers. Encouragingly, the report shows more than 1,000 additional dwellings have been approved since 2021, placing Noosa on track to meet the housing targets set by the state of 2,200 additional dwellings by 2031. Last year's amendments to Noosa Plan 2020, plus a removal of infrastructure costs for secondary dwellings, have both encouraged the building of smaller homes and affordable rental accommodation. There's been an extra 200 secondary dwellings built in recent years, and there's been good uptake of our small dwelling incentives, with 251 additional smaller units approved and developed. It's too early to assess the success of these amendments, ratified only late last year,

00:30:00 but the amendments also allow tiny homes to be built on church land, affordable housing to be built on community facilities land, and they further restrict the loss of new dwellings in medium, high, rural residential and rural zones to short-term accommodation. In the meantime, the focus is on making better use of existing stock by encouraging options such as secondary dwellings, room rentals, share housing, rooming accommodation, and tiny homes. As noted, the state government has also made substantial improvements to the number of social housing in Noosa. Council successfully advocated for about a 25 per cent increase in state government investment in social housing, with an extra 103 social and public housing dwellings either approved or progressing across the Shire. And these are in addition to the newly approved 25 social housing dwellings at Lake Macdonald Drive in Cooroy, which is being developed through a partnership involving Council,

00:31:00 community housing provider Coaster Bay, and support from the Council. Council has also encouraged the transfer of short-term accommodation back to principal place of residence or non-principal place of residence. Since the introduction of a local law in 2023, 363 approved, licensed STA properties have cancelled their approvals, and a further 112 approvals were not renewed. But there is more work to be done. Future actions include reviewing infrastructure charges for rooming and accommodation and community residences, and investigating new housing models, such as co-housing, communal living, and multi-generational housing. The future uses of two large Council-owned lots at Lake Macdonald Drive will be the subject of public consultation, and feasibility studies for affordable housing on Council car parks is underway through a federally funded housing supply program. Council will continue advocating for additional social housing, encouraging better use of existing

00:32:00 housing stock, and working with service providers to address homelessness and housing stress. Housing affordability is a complex, nationwide challenge, requiring collaboration between all levels of government, and as this report attests to, Noosa Council is stepping up to play its part. Do the other Councils wish to speak? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: This strategy has been a real success for Noosa Shire. I believe it represents the fact that we saw an issue when the former Mayor Stewart started this motion with a mayoral minute saying that we have a housing emergency, and then that started this whole process of consultation, and writing, and thinking about it, and coming back and forth, and a long dialogue, and eventually coming into the strategy that came before

00:33:00 us to vote on in 2022, but the housing emergency hasn't gone away since then, and it is something that Noosa Council can pride itself on, which is seeing a problem and working towards a solution, and this is exactly what we're doing here, and so I just am so happy to see, I would like to acknowledge the importance of all that work that has gone into this, especially the team here, because it was a long journey to get to this point. But now we have this strategy, and we actually have a way to address this problem. Without a strategy, you're not really addressing a problem, you're just making little decisions here, there, and everywhere, without a conscientious focus, but the strategy has done this for us, and I think we have been leaders in that short-term accommodation field, and limiting that, and we should be really, really proud of the strategy, and what it does, and the fact that we did it in the first place, way back when. And four years ago, and have addressed the problem, so I really am really proud of the

00:34:00 team, so thank you so much for pursuing this, following through with this, with creating the strategy in the first place, because without a strategy, you're just walking in the dark, and so it's been really a good process, and for me, as a councillor, I feel very strongly about this, because it's something that I was, you know, remotely a part of in a way, but at least a part of it. So thank you, Peter. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Can you have the councillor speak? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak. I do want to begin by thanking and acknowledging the work behind the report. It's comprehensive, and provides a valuable snapshot of the state of housing in Noosa. I'm going to talk about housing. And so we've got a monitoring report, and it's all about numbers on a page. But housing's about people, and also about the kind of community we want Noosa to be in,

00:35:00 in 10 years, 20 years, and 30 years' time. What stood out to me the most in this report is that it paints a very clear picture of a community becoming less accessible to the people who keep it functioning, our teachers, our nurses. Our hospitality workers, our tradies, retail staff, aged care workers, our lifeguards, police, paramedics, our fireys, our SES workers, they're finding it increasingly difficult to secure housing here in Noosa. The affordability figures in the report are also confronting. Entry level home ownership is now beyond the reach of many moderate income households. Many of the people who support our economy. And our community can no longer afford to rent suitable accommodation close to where they work. If this trend continues, we're not simply facing a housing challenge, we're reshaping the character

00:36:00 of our community. We risk becoming a place where people can only visit, only invest, and only retiring. And we risk not being able to afford a place where people can only visit, only invest, a place where people can build a life, raise a family, or establish a career. I don't believe that that's the future that most of the residents in Noosa want, or Noosa. Demographic trends reinforce my concern that our older population continues to grow, while the proportion of residents in workforce and family-forming age groups continues to decline. Every local business, school, health service, and aged care facility in Noosa continues to decline. When workers can no longer afford to live locally, the effects are felt by everyone.

00:37:00 For me, the value of this report is not as a monitoring report, it's as Tom sort of alluded to, it's a strategic or diagnostic tool. It helps us understand whether our policies and planning decisions are actually making a meaningful difference. While the delivery of more than 1,000 net additional dwellings is positive, it's also important to understand what type of housing is actually being created. How much is genuinely affordable, who is it serving, and is it in fact helping the people identified in this report as being most affected by housing stress? The report also highlights the continuing role of short-term accommodation in our housing market. I acknowledge that Council has made some progress in this report. But we probably need to do more. At present, once a property holds approval for short-term accommodation, there is no mechanism

00:38:00 requiring it to return to the long-term housing pool if it is no longer being actively used for visitor accommodation. Nor do we have the ability to limit the number of nights a year that an approved property can operate a short-term accommodation. This means that a dwelling can remain approved for short-term accommodation indefinitely. The report also highlights the importance of short-term accommodation. Even where it is largely vacant or underutilised, while housing availability for local residents remains under significant stress. At the same time, vacancy rates across parts of the Shire remain critically low. And that raises, to me, an important question. Have we exhausted all the available tools, or should we continue investigating additional options to improve housing availability? The report also highlights the importance of short-term accommodation. It highlights opportunities that I think are really worth pursuing, including greater

00:39:00 regional collaboration on workforce housing, better utilisation of underused land, increased housing around activity centres like Noosa Civic and The Junction, housing above commercial premises. Shop shops where appropriate, encouragement of secondary dwellings and continued investigation of council and community-owned land that may contribute to housing outcomes. I also want to touch on the suggestion that we should wait for census data before considering further action. While census night, I think it is tonight, and meaningful results and analysis will take time. In the meantime, what I'm suggesting is that the report, as staff have already spoken about, it already draws on current data sources, including rental vacancy rates, bond data,

00:40:00 and housing affordability analysis. So those indicators are telling us a consistent story, and that story is not improving. So waiting for perfect information can sometimes be a reason for delaying difficult decisions. I think we've already got enough information to understand the details. I'm going to close by just referencing a column that I just read a few days ago. It was from a financial commentator, Scott Pape, he's the barefoot investor. He described the current housing market correction that we're experiencing at the moment as one Australia has needed for 20 years. He also noted in his column that housing prices have increased by more than 400% since 2000, growing much faster than wages, partly because our tax and investment settings have encouraged

00:41:00 us to see housing as a better investment asset than a place to live. And I'm going to quote something he wrote in his article. He put it really simply. He said that, A house is for the rich. A house is for the poor living. And somewhere along the way, as a country, we forgot that. For me, that goes to the heart of this report. Housing should simply, not simply be measured by values and returns, it should be measured by whether people can afford to live in the communities they serve, whether young people like my kids can see a future for themselves here, and whether workers and families can continue to call NISA home. Council can't solve housing affordability on its own. But neither are we powerless. We have planning tools. We've got partnerships, advocacy opportunities, and policy levers that can help influence outcomes. The challenge before us is not whether there is a housing problem.

00:42:00 The data confirms there is. The challenge is whether we as a council are prepared to respond with the urgency, creativity, and the persistence required so that future generations can still see NISA as a place to live. Where they can live, work, contribute, and most importantly, belong. Councillor Phillips: In the police, we call it mission creep, where the organisation started off in a role and over years it crept. Mission. They call it mission creep. And so firstly, I want to start by saying thank you for the report. I'm going to go into a broader conversation about that. I want to be really clear that social housing is, there should be no one living on the streets. So I'm never going to start entering into that conversation when we're talking about housing

00:43:00 monitoring report. I see that as a state role and responsibility, and the mission creep has started coming down to our level. Maybe it was when the mayor, I'm glad she did that. But I also would like to say, state have to do their own job. They have to do their own role in social housing. My real passion in reading this, and it's sort of alluded to Council Lorentson, is affordable housing is the prevention to social housing and prevention to homelessness. So if we keep families in homes, we prevent them from being on the street. So our role in local government can actually be in our planning schemes and things that we can change within. Thank you. I think that's a really good conversation to focus on affordable housing, because what we need is families to live here. We need them to work here. We need them to keep the, we need them to get into aged care and nursing and all of

00:44:00 the industries that keep our community safe and running. I think we absolutely need a strategy. I agree with you, Tom, there. It's just for me. If we don't look at the fact that there's less and less families being able to afford here, I just wanted to tell you my grocery bill is around $380 a week for two kids. That's probably, I still need to go back to the shops today and it's Tuesday. So another friend of mine, her groceries is over $600 a week for two kids. That's where the cost pressures are coming. So when we sit here and we look at housing and we have to look at the big picture, especially when we're looking into budget and how all of these strategies actually talk to one another. Because on isolation, we can look at it, but they actually feed a much broader picture

00:45:00 of where we can start making measurable changes to make affordable housing or the families that live here. It's actually easier to live here because of the pressures. Of all the other costs of living. So I think, I don't want to start talking about mission creep into groceries and coals and wool and things like that. But I think it's really important that we always look at every decision we make isn't in isolation. It plays a much broader picture. I'd love to see our census data less than five years. I think that would be incredible if we had that data to feed some more accurate information. Even when we go into the schools, I'd love to know if that's, if we're going to be capturing homeschooling as well, because I know that's a trend. So maybe our figures on school enrolments need to be giving us a little bit more accurate data on that. But yeah, I think it's just always important for me to look at this and go, how can we use this in a prevention role rather than using it to react and start trying to create more complicated roles for us?

00:46:00 Yeah, that's all I've got to say. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question through the chair? Housing stress, there is a planning, there is a definition that if a family exceeds, I think, 30% of their income, that's considered housing stress. And then you factor in 40% or so as for, and when you look at, sorry, for rental stress. So 30% of your income. Or mortgage. Or mortgage. Speaker 8: Or mortgage. But it also qualifies the household to start with. So it's, I think, the lower 40% of income earning households spending 30% or more on their housing. So on our website, because council has a dedicated housing website,

00:47:00 one of the tabs there takes people to the ID.com housing monitor. Which, as I said, is that subscription service that we use. ID.com do have specific data graphs about housing stress and how many households and what type of households are in housing stress. So it's a very useful tool. It's great. Not all the data, as I said, some is contemporary, some is reliant. So it's, you know, it is as good as data as you can get. And it looks at that. It will then cross analyze that with the occupations that are most prevalent in Noosa Shire, for instance.

00:48:00 And it shows you which occupations can afford the rent in Noosa Shire, for instance. And then you can slide it to how some of the houses are in housing stress. And whether it's two incomes or one income or a single parent or whatever. So it's a really useful place to have a play. Councillor Phillips: Yeah. Speaker 8: Question. Councillor Phillips: Yes. Can you, I take this on notice. I'd love to know how many people are actually clicking on that and viewing it. I know that wouldn't be something you can probably grab now. But I'd love to know the insights behind the website. Yeah. And how many people are actually clicking on that. Speaker 8: So we, it was an outcome of a strategy at the end of 2022 that we get that subscription. So it's been available. ID.com has just recently changed that you do need to, I'm guessing it's part of their,

00:49:00 they went through a restructure and something recently. So now you do need to log on to get it, which we're not as happy with. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Cause that would be really important to know whether that outcome from that is actually measurable as far as if there's two people viewing it, then we'd have to say what we do to celebrate if that, yes, it was an outcome, but it'd be really nice to know how many people are actually viewing it. Speaker 8: I'll see if we can find out. Councillor Phillips: Thanks. Mayor Wilkie: Right. And the council switch to speak. Councillor Finzel. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. And thank you to the staff for your contribution and the work that you've done that space over the last, you know, five years or so, it's all good that we can sit around the table and we can talk about like economic rationale and all those things, but I'd like to talk to the heart of homelessness, which is linked specialist homelessness services in 24 to 25, sit around the link 40% of all clients have experience with homelessness.

00:50:00 I think as we move forward, we met this week with the, the, the, the group, I don't know what that group's called, but it was a collaborative approach around service providers and how we meet the existing homelessness within our Shire. Given the stats that have these specialist homelessness services respond to family and domestic violence. I think that this is a gap that. Now, I don't think we've drilled down enough to, and at the meeting yesterday, it looked like that, that we needed that collaborative approach to assess homelessness through the lens of family, domestic violence, mental health issues, and access to crisis accommodation.

00:51:00 It's all good that we talk about affordability, but I think we've got to get to the heart of the people that are experiencing difficulty through homelessness. The rate. Specialist Homelessness Services clients who've experienced family and domestic violence has increased from 36 to 43 per 10,000 population between 2012 and 2025. So I too am looking forward to the census to look at data to inform our decisions and how we address this social issue within our Shire and nationwide. Among specialist homeless services, clients who have experienced family and domestic violence, nine in 10 were women, females aged 18 or older, and children aged zero to 17. It's the main reason why women and children leave their homes in Australia. And many women and children leaving their homes may experience housing insecurity, and in some cases, homelessness.

00:52:00 For this reason, women and children, children affected by family and domestic violence, are a national homelessness priority group in the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, which came into effect in 2018. There's since been an update with the national plan to end violence against women and children 22 to 32, who have experienced sexual violence outside of the family, for example, if the perpetrator lives nearby or knows where they live. For example, if the perpetrator lives nearby or knows where they live. Housing assistance is a whole of community social issue. The stats, I haven't got it in front of me today, but that is a large percentage of women and children that are experiencing housing stress or homelessness due to these social issues.

00:53:00 Moving forward, I hope that we can continue to work together with the service providers within our community that are currently meeting together to try and address those issues. Moving forward, I hope that we can continue to work together with the service providers within our community that are currently meeting together to try and address those issues. Our service providers also provide contribution to that in terms of the services that they provide that everyone is under stress. I do recognise that it is a problem for all levels of government, but as we heard in the meeting this week, that the problem is around differing effects on all the people in the space. We heard about legislation, we heard about the need to provide housing for people with mental health issues, medical issues, people discharging from hospitals, the list goes on. So I'm hoping that in the future, we can continue to increase our influence and our response and action to every level of social impact that affects people who are unable, for whatever reason, to access safe and affordable places.

00:54:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Any further comments? I'll close. Thank you, everyone, for the comments around the table. Yes, we are in a national housing crisis and addressing it has required local government to step into a space that it hasn't done previously because the community expects all levels of government to play their part and step up and do what it can to assist. It has required Noosa Council to do things differently through adopting, facilitating social housing and planning scheme amendments. We have taken some bold steps in that regard and some courageous decisions have to be made, but it's gotten us to where we are, better placed to address and take action on some of these trends, we have to intervene in market forces to get an outcome in terms of affordable and social housing.

00:55:00 So there's a lot more work to do, I don't want to paint a rosy picture because it's not, but Noosa Council is doing what it can to do. We just need those people that can in this space to address this nationwide crisis. I put it to the vote those in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Nita, Zoe, and Dan. Next item is the NoosaHeads Lions Park land management plan and we have Director Richard MacGilliver and Dennis Wallace. Welcome. Cheers, Sir. Hi Dennis. Good morning. Would you care to give us a summary of your report, the reason why it's here, and a summary of your findings?

7.1.3 Noosa Heads Lions Park Land Management Plan ¶

▶ 00:55:38· Carried 4-2 · 7 divisions from council's minutes

00:56:00 Speaker 16: Sure. So this report is on the Noosa Heads Lions Park land management plan process. Councillors will recall that it considered the Go Noosa report last round of meetings, and part of its resolution around that Go Noosa report requested a further report from staff on the process and likely costs associated with the land management plan, addressing the inconsistent use of car parking on the park's green open space. So this report responds to that request. The report confirms that the Go Noosa Heads Lions Park land management plan is currently under review. It confirms that the use is inconsistent with the reserve's parks and recreation purpose. Under the Land Act to allow and regularise the use, Council must undertake a land management planning process consistent with the framework under the Act.

00:57:00 A land management plan must demonstrate that an inconsistent use does not diminish the purpose of the reserve and does not adversely impact the use of the land. The Land Act does not demonstrate that an inconsistent use does not diminish the purpose of the reserve and does not adversely impact the public interest. So those are sort of primary tests for Council to consider prior to embarking on the land management plan process as to whether the use is likely to do those things. As far as the land management plan process goes, the report outlines the expected costs and timeframes, just based on experience with previous land management planning exercises. I've come up occasionally with this Council. So it estimates a timeframe of six to 12 months and costs that might be associated with those. At this stage, that process isn't part of Council's budget or planning, so we would need to find

00:58:00 those allocations. The report also notes that non-exclusive native title applies to the land. So if the land is not due in the near future, the land management plan would not be subject So that's just a further consideration. Definitely the native title holders would be a key stakeholder and potentially there is a separate process under the native title framework that may need to apply. So happy to hear any questions. Mayor Wilkie: I'll just, Rakeem, you mentioned that New South Wales Council has undertaken some land management plan processes before. Could you give us some examples? Speaker 16: The most recent one that I'm aware of was the Noosa District Sports Reserve. So that was undertaken by consultants and obviously fairly contained with the stakeholders being the community groups there and looking at the future planning for that site

00:59:00 and a multitude of permit and leaseholders on that site. Mayor Wilkie: Why was it the need for that plan? What was the plan triggered on that site? Speaker 16: I believe one of the primary triggers for that was the region proposal at that time, which was for a commercial element to sleeve within the sport and rec uses on the site. Going back a few more years, we did the Noosaville foreshore land use master plan, which predated the current infrastructure plan. So that was in 2018. And took a couple of years. And involved consultants and quite a lot of community consultation on that one. Mayor Wilkie: And that involved changes of tenure as a result? Speaker 16: Not tenure as such, but we were dealing with commercial pressures on the recreational reserve at that time. So it considered whether council were supportive of entrenching commercial uses on the park reserve.

01:00:00 But ultimately, it came up with a framework similar to a small, you know, planning scheme for that reserve land running along a kilometre and a half of foreshore then. Question, Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: Just to follow that up then, so we needed an LNP for regen at Noosaville district. Regen didn't go ahead. So what did the LNP, we did an LNP for the project and it's still, does it still sit there for future planning decisions? Yeah. Speaker 16: I mean, land management plans don't just address one use, they need to be holistic. So that looks at the tenure for all those user groups, albeit they're not inconsistent uses that drove the need for the plan in the first place. And then you look at other future uses, so whether you're going to consider other commercial uses, sport festivals, music events, those sort of things.

01:01:00 Ideally are encompassed in a land plan. So for the Lions Park, it would need to be holistic as well. So thinking about events, events that we hold now, but also the future potential for events, tenure issues, commercial interests, whether they would be contemplated in the future or not. And so similar to a small planning scheme for that site. And trying to, trying to look forward, you know, the plans lifetime might be 10 or 20 years. So addressing future needs over that timeframe. Councillor Phillips: That's interesting. So you might have to take this on notice, but I'd like to know what's on stage. So we're doing an event strategy currently. So is the event strategy asking for an LNP or land that is used for events currently?

01:02:00 Speaker 14: Um. I guess the reality is the undertaking event doesn't necessarily trigger a land management plan itself. It comes down to whether the activities on that land constitutes an inconsistent action. We have sought advice from the department around the temporary utilization of some of those, such as Lions Park for events. And the state don't believe that is consistent activity as such because they're very temporary in nature and they do contribute to part of the park's function. As well, which is for park and recreational activities. So they wouldn't necessarily be considered as an inconsistent action. But I think to Dennis's point, moving forward, does council want to have a different view around how those park lands may be used in the future for events and longer term potential activation activities as well? Councillor Phillips: Okay. I just need to clarify that. So then we will have an LNP for the event strategy because that would mean that we're making decisions on the event strategy without.

01:03:00 Speaker 14: No. Not necessarily. Council can. I guess it comes down to particular where we are trustees of particular land that are if we're undertaking activities that are not consistent with the reserve purposes will require an LNP. But the event strategy is not seeking to necessarily do that from the work that's been prepared at this point in time. Speaker 16: Generally, those recreational events are inconsistent with recreational activities. I get that. Councillor Phillips: I just heard that it was 20 year planning. So if the event strategy was to evolve, I would have thought that it would feed into event strategy then because of the necessity to do like if. Speaker 16: If the event strategy identified things that were inconsistent with reserves around the Shire, then that might drive the need for land management plans on those reserves if that was part of a strategy. But I wouldn't anticipate that it probably would.

01:04:00 Okay. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: How often? Sorry. Question to the Chair. Dennis, how often would we need a LNP once? So it's six to 12 month process, 30 to 75,000 estimated cost. Once that process is delivered and an LNP is delivered, is that valid then for the next 10 years, 20 years? Speaker 16: Council can decide on those things. So the foreshore plan would be. The foreshore plan that we did was for 10 years, but it's serving that area well and we may look to extend that. So I would probably suggest 10 to 20 years is an appropriate timeframe, but Council is in control of that plan and it can decide if it wants to take a different tack. It's not locked into that. It's the owner of that plan. Speaker 14: Usually it does get attached to, in some cases, speaking with the State, can get attached to the title.

01:05:00 It becomes part of the plan. I guess the management plan relating to that reserve. But Council can choose, as you said, the length of time. It may also want to review that, have review clauses in there. So it's entirely up to the local government, particularly post 2024 when there were changes to the Land Management Act, which gave Councils the power to make decisions regarding inconsistent uses on its reserves. Councillor Phillips: Councillor Phillips. Thank you. Speaker 14: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Phillips: Is there any more on LNP, like on that? Because my questions. My questions are not related to it. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson. Councillor Phillips: Yeah. Councillor Wilson: Can we just clarify that we were given information in the last ordinary meeting that the Land Management Act would need approval from the Minister and that that would take time. So can we just now correct the record that it doesn't need approval? Speaker 14: I'm happy to clarify that. So obviously, I think originally we were looking at based off the previous land management plan process, which did involve consultation.

01:06:00 And that was obviously referring to the NUSA. District Sports Park. That was in 2023. Since 2024, since the new changes have come in, there's no requirement to seek approval from the department or the minister for approval. We can do that on the basis of undertaking the land management plan. So happy to clarify that there's no formal requirement to consult with the department in order to prepare a land management plan and undertake an inconsistent use. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Yes, Councillor Wilson. Continue. Councillor Wilson: Thanks. We've been in consultation for a number of years as we continue to use Lions Park for parking. Why are we only just looking at this process now? Speaker 16: There was a change that came in under the Land Act in 2024. So previously, for the inconsistent uses, it sat as requiring ministerial approval, often by delegation, I believe, through the department. And that changed in 2024 to shift those powers over to trustees.

01:07:00 And most normally councils to manage its own affairs and do the land plans and satisfy itself about the tests under the Act. So there was a shift in those legislative changes in 2024. Councillor Wilson: So the question was why didn't we put a land management plan in place in 2024 when we had an obligation to do so? Because we've continued to use the park for parking in those years. Speaker 16: Yeah. I think as the previous reports have shown, there was a shift in those legislative changes and the previous resolutions that are noted in the report, that was handled as part of considerations of previous GoNUSA reports, to my knowledge. Mayor Wilkie: So we were technically a breach. Speaker 16: Yeah. Technically. I think I'm poorly saying. Councillor Phillips: And have we heard anything from the minister or do we fine ourselves? Speaker 14: No. I think it's just the fact is, the point is that it has been raised that a land management plan process is required. I think, you know.

01:08:00 Looking at this and the history there, that council hasn't necessarily followed the process as accurately as it should have. It should have been undertaking this in the land management plan process. I think the department has been quite patient, cooperative with council because in previous years and under previous administrations, it had been understanding that council was looking to phase out the use of overflow parking at Lyons Park. And therefore, it has been. It understood it was going through a DMP process and was evaluating feedback from the community on those sorts of issues. So it was patiently working with the local government. And then there were changes to the Land Act in 2024 where the department basically are advising this is council's decision, but it must go through a proper process to conclude whether it wants to allow that moving forward. Okay. So this gives us the opportunity to rectify moving forward. Councillor Phillips: So that's confused me.

01:09:00 Richard, around how would we tell the department we're phasing out car parking through DMP when that wasn't a decision by council? Speaker 14: It's based on all of the resolutions and there's very many of them that have been undertaken over the years that based on each year, those reports that were prepared talk about things like potentially phasing out the paid parking or the overflow parking there. But that's obviously changed each year as well when council's made decisions to want to continue it and explore that. So it has been an iterative process. And I'm not saying it's a decision I've made. It's just the history of what we're doing right now. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morrison. I've got a few amendments that I'd like to test on the floor if that's all right. So Amendment 1. Director Walsh: Sorry, Mr Chair. It's not been moved. No one's moved. Oh. Mayor Wilkie: Oh. Someone care to move the recommendation?

01:10:00 Councillor Wegener. Have a seconder. Anyone care to second the motion? Get the ball rolling. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: For debate, I'm happy to second the motion. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wegener, you wish to speak? No. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Amendment. No. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. First amendment. And I'm going to start by saying I have three amendments and they're all pertaining to the one action, which is seeking legal advice. So just to bear that in mind. And I've circulated the amendments. Amendment 1, that prior to any further resourcing being committed to a land management plan process for the Noosa Heads Lions Park. Council obtain written legal advice on whether the Christmas period overflow parking is inconsistent

01:11:00 with the reserve's parks and recreational purpose or properly characterised as incidental or auxiliary to it. Having regard to attachment 1 and the history of the use in the report with the outcome reported back to council before any further step is taken. Mayor Wilkie: We have a seconder for that. Happy to second. Second. Second to Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: So going to start by, I've been in council now six years and for the last six years, this issue always comes up. I can't recall that this question's actually ever been tested. Whether the Christmas overflow use is actually in fact inconsistent. Or whether we just, that conclusion was simply assumed over the many years.

01:12:00 And I say that because I referenced the actual test that's attached to attachment 1 of the report. But before I move on, I think it's probably worth explaining what I mean by incidental or auxiliary. Because that's the heart of what I'm trying to move across today. I think it's probably worth explaining what I mean by incidental or auxiliary. And I'm going to start by using an example. So some things on a park aren't the recreation itself. But it's what makes the recreation possible. So like a walking park. A walking park isn't recreation. But no one would call it out of place on, say, a reservation, a recreation reserve. Because it's how people get to and use the park. So parking is the same. If people can't reasonably get to the beach or our national park. Without somewhere to leave the car. Then parking isn't a separate or competing use of the land.

01:13:00 It's supporting the very purpose that the reserve exists for. And that's the difference between a use that's inconsistent with the reserve's purpose. And one that's incidental or auxiliary to it. One competes with the purpose. And the other one actually delivers, helps deliver the purpose. Important to note. This is only 21 days. A year. There are no permanent structures. The turf's reinstated every year. And that's a really different question to a permanent use. The use is run every Christmas for over 20 years. Without diminishing the park. Which, again, is itself strong evidence. A written legal opinion on this would be far less than the $30,000 to $75,000. And six to 12 months. This reports us. I'm sorry. Purchase. Ask us to commit. And I just think we need to know the answer before we progress.

01:14:00 Question. Just obtaining legal advice, specifically testing. Whether the Christmas overflow use is, in fact, inconsistent. Or simply incidental or auxiliary. To the park's main purpose. Mayor Wilkie: Is that it, Councillor Lorentson? It is. Okay. Councillor Phillips: Councillor Phillips, question. To Councillor Lorentson, and I know it's a wording change. I just wondered whether you would consider taking out prior to any further resourcing being committed to LNP process. I fully agree about the written legal advice and that part, but what happens if throughout the debate there's conversation about LNP being what we need to do? Are you, would you consider not tying it to the...

01:15:00 Councillor Lorentson: Absolutely. I'm happy to, that council obtain written legal advice, just omit the words prior to any further resourcing being committed. I'm happy if everyone on the floor is happy with that. Mayor Wilkie: I'm not. We've got to, it's been moved and seconded and spoken to. If it was just moved and not seconded, we could play with the wording. We can still amend. If this gets up, we can still amend that wording, amend the amendment. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, then I'll speak to it. So the wording says prior to any further resourcing being committed to a land management plan process for Noosa Heads Lines Park, council obtain written legal advice. What am I? Ideally seeking from this is we've got 10 days before the ordinary meeting and that we get that advice before the ordinary meeting. So it's basically putting a pause on the report that's in front of us. I don't think omitting or keeping the wording actually changes what I'm seeking.

01:16:00 Councillor Phillips: Yeah, that clarifies it. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Question of staff. Don't we already have legal advice on whether this is an inconsistent use or not? Speaker 16: Yeah, it's been unambiguous from our perspective. We have sought. Legal advice in preparing this report and the report confirms that it's considered an inconsistent use. The legal advice confirmed the view that it's an inconsistent use and the advice from land officers at the department has been consistent on that front for many years. So it's been unambiguous from our perspective. You know, as far as the parking supporting the reserve purpose. That's not the view of others because the parking is not associated with the use of that reserve. It's associated with the use of other areas. And whilst you might turn up to recreate on the beach or in the National Park, it's about that reserve itself.

01:17:00 So there is parking on the reserve at the moment with the Lions Car Park, which is free formalised parking, which you can say, you know, it's a safe space. It's not associated with the use of that reserve, but parking on the park itself and charging money for that is not associated with the reserve purpose. It's it's really facilitating the precinct. And so it is focused on the reserve purpose and the use of the reserve itself. Mayor Wilkie: Follow up question. And if parking on the grassed area excludes use of that area as a recreational reserve, does that mean it's not considered an ancillary use? Speaker 16: Yes, well, it's it's considered an inconsistent use, so it's not it's not ancillary. So, yeah, for I think, you know, it's by degrees, but for the most part, the reserve still has to be available for its use and its purpose for something to be ancillary to it.

01:18:00 So the parking at that time for the 21 days has supplants the recreational use of of the reserve. Councillor Phillips: Councillor Phillips. Question. Um, to the legal advice, um, was there a conversation with them around if there was an LNP in price, would it change the outcome of what I'd like to know more about what we asked legals to consider rather than just what is currently in front of us that we don't have an LNP because of course they're going to say it's inconsistent because it says it in the legislation. So do we test the legals with if there was an LNP, would the advice be different? Speaker 16: Well, the question is whether it's a consistent or inconsistent use of the reserve purpose in the event that it is inconsistent, it drives the need for an LNP for that use to continue. So, um, so the LNP then allows the inconsistent use to occur subject to the framework that it establishes for how long, what are the reparations?

01:19:00 What are the. Yeah, I get that. Councillor Phillips: So, but my question is, did legals give us advice? If there was an LNP, would it clearly say that then the inconsistent use is because there is no LNP? Speaker 14: No, that's no, no, there's, there's two sort of steps. Um, Jess, so the first one is, is it an inconsistent or a consistent use in terms of does it need a land management plan? Um, so the first step is to understand is it an inconsistent use or a consistent use and then if it is an inconsistent use, as Dennis has outlined, then that triggers the need for a land management plan. Um, and the advice we've got, and I think you've seen a copy of the advice from the department, what that process is in terms of needing an LNP and what's involved and that is outlined in the report. So that would then determine the process to get to, um, the end of an LNP process, I guess.

01:20:00 Speaker 16: It doesn't change it from being consistent or inconsistent. It allows that inconsistent use to occur subject to the terms that the LNP establishes. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks. Councillor Lorentson, then Councillor Wilson. Um, so a couple of questions in terms of the legal opinion. Um, could we have a copy of the advice and was it internal legal advice or independent, um, legal advice? Speaker 16: It, it was independent, um, so from an external solicitor that we use, um, and yeah, I think it could be circulated. Councillor Lorentson: Could we, could I put that on notice, could I have a copy? Um, and in terms of the, um, email we received recently from the minister, um, he was an advisor, not a legal consultant, is that correct? Speaker 14: So the, you're talking about the feedback from the department? Yep.

01:21:00 Um, yeah, so that they wouldn't provide their legal officer's opinions to us. They're providing their expert opinions from a department perspective, so they'll write on behalf of the department. And they've sent us advice around those provisions. That advice that you've received doesn't go into the inconsistent. It talks about the process, I guess, from a legislative point of view and, um, the mechanisms to undertake that process as such. So you, you've obviously got that, um, where you can sort legal advice from the department's solicitors because the department's quite comfortable with its advice to us on those, on those aspects. Right. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor, sorry. If I could, if I could ask you a question. I have the advice that would be great. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Um, I just wanted a question because the advice that we were sent says, um, council is currently considering a proposal involving a potential inconsistent action on trust land. So it's already taken the position that it is inconsistent.

01:22:00 Um, so did we actually question whether it was inconsistent? Thank you. That was what I was trying to ask, but you did it much better. Speaker 14: Yeah. So I think, um, and look, Hayley's not here. Who was the officer that engaged, um, with the department. She's based it off what the actual motion was from the previous, um, month, which did talk about intended to use it for the inconsistent action. So she's just raised the same questions that were raised by council as if it was seeking to undertake an inconsistent action moving forward, what would be the process and the pathways to get there. So. Councillor Phillips: Which is why on the day I was concerned about the procedural motion because, um, I'll get to a question, um, because they've taken that as what they've gone to legals with, but there was a motion that got carried before that suggesting that we would go ahead with it this year. So did we go to legals with the amendment that got passed before the procedural motion to move it to today?

01:23:00 Speaker 14: The advice was sought after the meeting, um, in relation to basically what was endorsed by council. So the wording, you know, as, so to undertow, what's the process to undertake a land management plan to support the need for an inconsistent use by flow parking? Yes. Mayor Wilkie: I will speak to the mo, uh, the amendment to keep things rolling councillors. Uh, look, it's always good to have things clarified in our own minds, but the advice has been unequivocal for some time that, uh, use of paid car parking on the lines, um, Noosa Heads Lions Park Recreational Reserve is an inconsistent use and it is not an ancillary use. So we do have that advice from our expert staff, external legals and the department. So in this sense, the, the amendment is largely redundant, but as has been said, if you want it to stand prior to the ordinary meeting to get, uh, the advice, which I suspect would

01:24:00 be a repeat of what we've received already back to us, uh, that directly answers this amendment. That's one way you could go, but I think it's largely redundant and, um, I ask that we perhaps let this one go and then move on to councillor Lorentson's second amendment. So I won't be supporting the amendment. Councillor Lorentson: Um, I, I may move the procedural notice, um, motion please, because I would like to see the legal advice. And my question is, was the specific question asked, um, is this an inconsistent use or is it an incidental or auxiliary? So this is a question of staff now? To the staff. So, so my question is what was actually asked? Speaker 16: Um. We didn't ask whether it was incidental or ancillary because, um, that, that didn't come to mind. Like the, the position on it being inconsistent from departmental staff.

01:25:00 And legal advice has been just consistent for many years. Councillor Lorentson: So can I ask clarification? What I've understood from attachment one is that when it sets out the two tests that, you know, you can't diminish the park's purpose and it can't harm the public interest. Um, they say these are judgment calls and that a trustee, if you're not sure you simply default to treating the use as inconsistent. So. Question. My question is, um, again, have we asked specifically is the use inconsistent or is it incidental or auxiliary to the park's main purpose? Um, or have we simply defaulted as we are required to, to the position that it's inconsistent, um, as set out in attachment one?

01:26:00 Speaker 16: We've had it reaffirmed by. Um. Uh, independent legal advice and the land officers of the department that commercial use of the green open space of the park is inconsistent with the reserved purpose. Councillor Lorentson: Commercial use. Speaker 16: Car parking use of the, of the green open space is inconsistent. Um, so that's been affirmed. Um, and then the tests, uh, about the land management process for allowing that use to proceed. So that's really what the report is about is getting on as, as the resolution stated about the land management plan to ratify the inconsistent use. I understand that you're trying to explore that it's, um, ancillary or, um, but, but that's, uh, you know, we're fairly confident that, that would not be an option to, to deem it as an ancillary.

01:27:00 Councillor Lorentson: But the question has never been answered. Um, by our. Speaker 14: In terms of the advice and I've, I've got a copy of it here. I think, you know, what it clearly highlights and I'll, I'll, I'll read exactly the wording from an external solicitor on this point is the use of the recreational reserve overflow parking that is not connected to an ancillary recreation use is clearly a purpose for inconsistent use with the reserve. So that's the unequivocal external legal advice that's consistent with, with, with all other opinions, um, obtained, including the department itself, making it clear in writing that it is an inconsistent action under the land act and therefore needs a land management plan process. So we've had numerous sources provide advice on that, including the department, including external legal, um, and obviously our own staff have evaluated the same framework and have all formed the same conclusion. Councillor Lorentson: Could I ask what year, um, you asked that advice?

01:28:00 Speaker 14: The year just recently, since the last meeting from the external solicitor, but the department has also been very consistent in its feedback to council. I've got a copy of a letter from, you know, as far back as 2020, highlighting that they believe that the overflow parking is inconsistent. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask whether the specific question was also asked that we're only asking for 21 days. So in the past we had asked for Easter car parking, school holidays, um, this is quite scoped and very narrow. It's only for 21 days. Speaker 16: It's a bit like a planning scheme through the chair. It's a bit like a planning scheme. Like the use is the use, um, and then the frequency is downstream of that. So the use of the green open space for paid parking is an inconsistent use. So it's not, it's not a matter of degrees about, um, the extent of the year that's been

01:29:00 used. Um, then in regularising that use through the land management plan process, there are other tests that the report sets out about diminishing the purpose and the public interest. So I think the frequency of the use, um, goes to those tests in allowing it under a land management plan, if that makes sense. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Phillips. Oh, sorry. Councillor Finzel. You've been waiting patiently. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Thank you. Um, just coming to the point of looking at through another lens. In terms of like, if you flip the argument the other way, that the consistent use has been the overflow parking, has it been looked through the lens of like culture and heritage in terms of like, and a historical thing in the identity of our shop? Has that question been asked around that? So that could be the flip side that people could argue that through that lens, it's consistently

01:30:00 been used. Historically, it's been used through our identity and connection to place and each other. Mayor Wilkie: I think the question's been asked, Councillor. Yeah. We'll get you an answer. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 16: I think to that point, the proper outcome would be to change the reserve purpose to car park. Speaker 7: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Further questions, councillors? No. Councillor Finzel, you have the floor. Councillor Finzel: If, say for example, the Lions went to collect money from a sealed bit of a car park there and cross over behind where the existing bus shelter is, would that be deemed to be like a consistent use? Speaker 16: I think, you know, if we're talking about the use of the formalised car park as it exists at the moment, I don't think that, you know, seasonal charging for use of those areas would

01:31:00 necessarily trigger a land management planning process. Councillor Finzel: So there'd be potential that the Lions could collect money through the sealed car parks? Speaker 16: I think there would be. I think so. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morrison. In terms of the reserve's recreational purpose, is that the parking can exist also to allow the public to access, not just Lions Park, but to the public as well. So it's not just the park, but the National Park, Noosa Main Beach and the river. Speaker 16: Again, if that was the intent, then it probably needs to be a reserve for car parking because the reserve purpose being for recreation, it's not a broader recreation sense. It's recreation on that reserve. So currently we have parking as a component of the use of that land, but it serves the recreational use of that land. And when we supplant the recreational use with cars.

01:32:00 So people can't access the land to recreate on it, then we're contravening that reserve purpose. It's not about allowing people into the precinct to recreate elsewhere. The reserve purpose is on that parcel of land. Councillor Lorentson: So in terms of the surf club car park, so we're repurposing the surf club car park for a drop off zone. What is the main purpose of that reserve? We're getting a bit off topic here. Mayor Wilkie: No, I think it's, I think it's related. Speaker 14: Is it relevant? It's open space recreation. It's a car park and used for ancillary car parking drop off activities, I would assume. I only haven't looked at that as part of this request for this report. Mayor Wilkie: Any other councillors? Oh, Councillor Finzel, you had a question. Councillor Finzel: Just on the back of that then, given that is a sealed car park over in the recreational

01:33:00 area. Has that, how has that gone ahead? Is that? No. How have we arrived at that? To put a sealed car park. Speaker 14: Been there for a very long period of time. So it's a story. Probably predates the land act, I would imagine, possibly. I don't know. We'll have to look at that. But it's well established that there's been car parking related to the park for a very long period of time. Mayor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? We have an amendment before us. Councillor Phillips: Yes, I agree. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: But I'll ask Councillor Finzel a question first. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Phillips: So is that what you're meaning that, because I think I went back as far as in 2019, council said that the Lions Park's been used for 20 years for car parking. So that was in 2019. So are you questioning whether or not the one near the surf club is also being used? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Like how does that exist if we can't look at this through the lens of like connection to place and longevity through an extended use, which could be seen through the other

01:34:00 perspective as a benefit to the community, given it could be, you know, it's been there for longevity. That's part of our plan. That's part of our history. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: I'll speak to it quickly to support the amendment. Because for me, so I did a lot of research on how long this has been debated in council. So I went back as far as 2019. They talked about 20 years. We talked about 20 years since the Lions Club car park was used for peak period overflow parking. It was considered. I only went back 10 years. But it was considered in 2019. Again in 2020. Again through the Go Noosa programs. Again in 2023. Again in 2024. And 2025. And again this year. In March 23, council specifically resolved to undertake community engagement about future,

01:35:00 the future of the Lions Park. By late 2024, that consultation still hadn't occurred. And then only five months ago in March this year, we published an amendment that said it was publicly acknowledged in a media statement. Something particularly important. And it was despite relying on Lions Park for many years, council lacked the comparative data required to make an informed long term decision. So then we conducted a trial. And then now more than two decades of use and years of council discussions, we've finally reached a point, which I believe we had last month. It was voted on and went through. And I think the issue is with process because then there was a procedural motion bringing up the Land Act and the inconsistent use as a means to bring this back to the table today. We are still making predetermined decisions without LNP.

01:36:00 And my issue again is with process because it's not the first time we've had that here. We've had it in relation to Lake MacDonald Drive as well. So I would like to follow really good process. Mayor Wilkie: Point of order. What is the... Could you withdraw your statement about the incorrect process for Lake MacDonald Drive? Councillor Phillips: When we talked about the act we needed to follow for the... Mayor Wilkie: You were inferring there was improper process with Lake MacDonald Drive. Councillor Phillips: I'll withdraw that. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Phillips: So I think today for me, it's really about bringing it back to the LNP. Bringing it back to what legal advice, what we can actually test. So the legal status and the advice we've been given absolutely matters, but we need to actually test it. So I will support the amendment so we can keep getting on with the next part of today's

01:37:00 report. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson. Just a couple more questions. The 130 sealed car parks and... Yes. And just if I understood correctly, Dennis, they are consistent with the reserve's purpose. Speaker 16: They're part of the reserve as it sits and the way that the reserve's being constructed, they serve the reserve. Mayor Wilkie: Correct. Speaker 16: So the report notes... So yes, they are consistent. The report notes that there's formalised parking as part of the reserve currently. So at the moment, the lines park is open space and car parking is open space. So yes. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Car parking is consistent with the reserve's purpose. The 130 formalised car parks. It would be ancillary, wouldn't it? Speaker 14: Yeah. They serve the current recreation park purpose of the reserve. So they're established.

01:38:00 They've been there for a significant period of time. We're not raising that as an issue of dispute. No. We're just saying that there is car parking. It is. Yeah. Like many parks, they do have car parking as part of a park function, right? Sure. To support the recreation and park use. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: So my question is, have we asked for legal advice, given that the 130 sealed car parks are consistent within the reserve's purpose, whether the overflow, which is temporary, seasonal, only 21 days, and it's an extension of parking that already lawfully exists. On the reserve. But it's not a new character for the park and therefore it is also a consistent use and a permitted use. Have we actually thrown that question at a lawyer? Speaker 16: The legal advice came back. I think Richard might have read it. But it's opening advice was, firstly, I think the use of the recreation reserve for overflow

01:39:00 parking that is not connected to the ancillary recreation use is clearly a purpose of the park. So that's the legal advice. And that's consistent with the departmental offices, of which there's been quite a number over the years, and their position on it as well. So we haven't tested it the other way because it's been unequivocal. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: So my question is, was there any statutory basis for that conclusion? Speaker 16: It's a review of it. It's under the title of legislative framework. So it's a review of it. It's under the legislation. Councillor Lorentson: So it's a legal opinion. Legal opinion, which is legal advice. Yeah. Speaker 14: And we respect the decision of council whether it does want to support a motion or not. Thank you very much. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: We have a discussion and we're going to the amendment before us. Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: I will. And I'll start with legal opinion.

01:40:00 And I'm going to state it is opinion. And I've spoken over the week with other people with legal opinion. And I just keep coming back to due diligence and the fact that what we're talking about is rate pays money. And if we commit to a process that's six to 12 months, costing $30,000 to $75,000, I want to reiterate, it's rate pays money. And if there's an opportunity, it's rate pays money. If there's an opportunity that we don't need to spend it, I think we need to explore that. So we owe it to the community to explore and confirm whether in fact we do need a larger amount or whether we need to spend that money at all. And I'm going to reference some recent decisions that this community's lived through, transport

01:41:00 decisions. This is about transport, public parking. So I'm going to reference recent transport decisions that this community has lived through. Mayor Wilkie: This is bringing up new information, councillor, which you can't do in a little while. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I think we just have a responsibility as councillors to show our community that when we do things, we do things carefully. And if there is some ambiguity around the table, that we take the proper step and rather than assuming our way out to an outcome, that we just... Take one extra step to assure the community that we're exploring every available option to them. This is an important decision. And if we go down the track for an LMP, $30,000 to $75,000 is a lot of money. And it's also about rebuilding trust, given some light of what's happened over the last few months. So I think we just need to get the basics right and clarity.

01:42:00 There's confusion. There's confusion around the table. We just need some clarity before we commit real money. And we need to be very specific in the question that we ask for advice on. And the specific question that has never been asked is whether or not overflow parking, which supports 130 concealed car parks, is in fact consistent with the reserve's purpose, given that it's temporary, seasonal, only 21 days, and in fact incidental or auxiliary to the reserve's purpose. I think that specific question needs to be asked and answered. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Put the amendment to the vote. Mayor Wilkie: Those in favour? Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilkie. The amendment is lost. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to try another one?

01:43:00 Councillor Lorentson: Yep. Amendment 2, that council obtain written legal advice on what would be required to satisfy the diminishment of purpose and public interest test under section 52 , having regard to the factors attachment 1 identifies as relevant with the outcome reported back to council before any further resourcing is committed to an LNP process. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson, is that what's written on seems to be a bit different to what you just read out. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, okay. That's my third amendment. Oh, sorry. Is that the right one? You've got another one. That's right. You've got another one. Speaker 12: Amendment 2. Councillor Lorentson: Is that the right one? Speaker 12: Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

01:44:00 Mayor Wilkie: Are you happy with that wording, Councillor? Councillor Lorentson: Yep. Mayor Wilkie: Can we have a seconder for that? Councillor Lorentson: I'll be second. Mayor Wilkie: Seconder, Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Simply, the report quotes six to 12 months, $30,000 to $75,000 in costs. And I go back to due diligence and ratepayers money. And I go back to due diligence and ratepayers money. So I think it costs really little to ask what the tests actually require. And we need to actually find out what the plan needs to prove if we go down an LNP. I think we should know what the diminished meant test and the public interest test actually require of us so that when and if we start the LNP process, staff aren't drafted for

01:45:00 Council hasn't been asked to approve a plan against a criteria that hasn't been explained. I'm just more concerned that we're going to be providing a lot of detail and going through a process potentially unnecessarily. So the request is simple. You know, what do we actually need? What do we actually need to provide in the plan? Council Wilson, you have a question? Councillor Wilson: Yeah, I just want to clarify, because as this report stands, it's just a report for noting and it doesn't actually recommend developing a land management plan. So there isn't actually any work progressing on this at the moment. Mayor Wilkie: That's the correct question? Yep. Speaker 14: There's no budget allocated for this body of work. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson, I'm going to take a beginner's mind to this.

01:46:00 Could you help me understand what you're seeking to achieve with this amendment? Councillor Lorentson: I'm just really concerned that we're going to, you know, I think we've got all the information that we need. I'm concerned that the report is quoting a very detailed process and it compares it with the regen process. Which is very different to a 21-day process. So I think before we start committing resourcing and spending $30,000 to $75,000, it would be really useful to understand what, in fact, is required to establish or to prove the two tests, you know, proportion, frequency, permanency. We already know that 5%. Interruption to recreational. We've got 25 years of evidence.

01:47:00 Public interest. We've got 5,000 cars. We know how much money has been collected by charity. I just possibly just want to know the level of detail and whether we need to actually spend $30,000 to $75,000 and whether the timeframe quoted is actually correct. Whether it's scaled down or not. I think it's going to be less onerous for a LNP proportionate to the days required, 21 days, it's going to be less onerous and help us deliver an LNP before the Christmas period. Mayor Wilkie: Is it oversimplifying to ask that this amendment is seeking to clarify whether an LNP is even necessary? Councillor Lorentson: No, I'm assuming here that if the use is inconsistent and given that, you know, the decision around the table by majority is that it is inconsistent before we progress to a detailed LNP as one that's been explained in the report, that we just understand what's actually required.

01:48:00 Questions have started. Mayor Wilkie: Is it clear to you? What this amendment is asking? Speaker 16: Well, principally, it's calling for legal advice about other matters. I think it's looking for surety that the inconsistent use could pass those tests under the legislation. And I understand why you would look to do that. But it's difficult to outsource the answer about those tests, because as trustee and the manager of the land, the onus falls on council to make its decision about whether it passes those tests. So that's part of the purpose of this report to flag that perhaps around the table, councillors turn their mind to whether they think that the use of car parking on the green open space at Lyons Park diminishes the effect of the LNP.

01:49:00 So I understand why you might look to seek an external opinion on those things. But it's probably unlikely that a lawyer is going to put a nice ribbon around it and say, here's your answer, because the onus falls back on council as the land manager to make its decision about those things. And I have. Some personal views on those things, particularly the second test about the public interest. We know that there are benefits to it. But at the last meeting, it was also outlined that it became part of the DMP consultation. And I believe that was part of the agreed process was to introduce it into the DMP consultation to specifically bring up this issue.

01:50:00 And I think it was Kim at the last meeting. Sorry, Lynn at the last meeting. A line that it was 70% weren't in favour of continuing to use the part. Mayor Wilkie: And those two tests need to be satisfied as part of an LNP process. Speaker 16: Yes, and I guess flagging those primary tests in this report, the purpose of that is for council to consider whether it's likely to meet those tests as to whether you would then proceed to the land management process and the resources involved in that. Yeah, I think it does diminish the purpose of reserves somewhat, but it's not permanently, you know, it's not like building a building or a structure that alienates the land. It's only temporary, as the councillor points out.

01:51:00 But that question of whether it's in, whether it adversely affects the public interest, I think it's unclear from my perspective. Like there are pros and cons and there probably are different sides of the argument on that. So that would be a difficult one for an external party to say, yes, it's in the public interest. It's a judgment call and it's a little bit divided. I think normally when you're proceeding with a land management plan, you would be fairly confident that, you know, your community is behind you for the vast majority. So I would have some concerns about that as to, you know, it being a divided issue. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Phillips and Councillor Wilson. Councillor Phillips: Just a query with that. So in 2023, we resolved to seek community feedback specifically on the use of the Lions Park as car parking. So is the DMP, that one question on that Director Rawlings answered last month, that's the one question we're referring to as council?

01:52:00 Was there more consultation or was there more consultation done? Speaker 14: No, I believe that's all that I'm aware of that's been done before the public consultation, Councillor. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: If we were to develop a land management plan, would you foresee that we would take specific community consultation on this? Because the question from the DMP was kind of vague, didn't specify that it was only for 20 days. Speaker 16: Council isn't obliged to prime the consultation, but I think. I think we would to some extent for this, you know, key parcel of land. It's such an important parcel of land and the way we do business, we wouldn't be avoiding the consultation we would consult. Councillor Wilson: So would we do that at the beginning of the process to determine whether we've got this public interest test met before spending any other money on the plan?

01:53:00 Speaker 16: The report. The report actually has the. The community consultation quite late in the process. Councillor Wilson: Because if you can't meet that public interest test, then you wouldn't prepare that before. That's true. Speaker 16: Yeah, well, I guess, yeah, the nature of the discussion is how can we close off on that and where, what, in view of the council, is it in the community's interests or not to allow the inconsistencies on the part. Yeah. I mean, I think that's a really good perspective. I feel that there there would be two camps to whether it's a net benefit or net disbenefit to the community. Speaker 14: And in addition, are there management actions that can be put in place to maybe address any of those concerns against it? And I think that's a key part of the process is other actions that we could do that would, you know, address any particular concerns from members of the public regarding that public interest piece.

01:54:00 Like it restricts my ability. To kick a ball with my family member. Well, is there a solution to sort of respond to that issue by providing an area that can be, you know, available for kick and throw or something like that at the same time? So there are you could get that feedback and then build up a management plan around some of that feedback as well as part of it. But yeah, it will be a key piece as well as outlined in the report is also seeking legal advice of the process for community consultation, legal advice and pulling together all of that. The information and data that we have already obtained would help them inform that process to keep things moving. Mayor Wilkie: Councilors, I'll speak to it. I appreciate what's and I thanks Councillor Lorentson for explaining it patiently. But I I'm concerned that it would be preempting an outcome which I if we're going to go down the path of a land management plan, I'd rather it would not be preempting.

01:55:00 Any outcomes and see what the process throws up after the public consultation. And as as we've heard, it'd be very hard to get be very problematic getting independent legal advice about the issues raised in this amendment, and I think they might be preemptive. So I'd rather a pure process going forward if that's the way the council wants to go, or it could choose not to allow parking in the Lions Park and avoid the necessity. of an unbudgeted, unscheduled consultation process for a land management plan and keep it simple and keep it very simple. You had a question, Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: Just want to understand in terms of public interest test and the community consultation process.

01:56:00 So in terms of, you know, we had on the record, I think, over 2300 signatures supporting the land management plan. The use of the park some time ago, we've done some consultation. We've also had decisions 20 years of council supporting the use of the park. Does that then reduce or does that feed into the consultation process? Speaker 16: That's part of the material that the council uses in developing the plan. So, yeah, I mean, if council felt that it had done enough consultation, it might just proceed on. So we can make that decision. Councillor Lorentson: So my question is, and I think I've through, you know, another potential amendment to you, Richard, is why can't we look at a scaled version of the LNP, given that we have quite a bit of information over the last 20 years that we can put together, whether or not it's it satisfies the two legal tests?

01:57:00 Speaker 14: I mean, and that's that's a decision for councils around this table, I guess, from an officer point of view. Our advice would be there's a range of different inputs that we are aware of and council would be aware of in terms of petitions on either side for and against. There's also the DMP feedback that you've received as well as petitions for the use of it. So I guess our advice is there's potentially conflicting views on that. And our advice would be if council is looking at an undertaking, we need to look at a scaled version of the LNP. It would be wise to to reaffirm the specific questions with the community on that, given there are contrasting views around that. So that would be our suggestion. But ultimately, it's a decision for council whether it's comfortable that consultation has been undertaken, the decision you make in the public interest is sound and defendable.

01:58:00 Speaker 12: So we've got a scale. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, we have an amendment before Councillor Lorentson closes. Do you wish anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Lorentson, you have the floor. Councillor Lorentson: No, clearly this one's not going to stand up. But I think, you know, I just keep coming back to before we commit to 6-12 months, before we commit not our money, rate pays money 30 to 75,000. I think it's really critical that we understand. What the diminishment and public interest test actually require. I'm, you know, I'm satisfied around the table that, you know, legal advice is probably not the right way to do this. So, yeah, I'll close respecting what's been said around the table. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Those in favour of the amendment, Councillor Phillips, Councillor Lorentson.

01:59:00 Those against, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Wilkie. Another amendment, amendment three. Councillor Lorentson: Three, yep, that council prepare a scoped proportionate management plan for the Christmas overflow parking, 21 days. Speaker 9: Sorry, I'll have to write this out. Councillor Lorentson: This is a new one. Oh, I sent it to Richard over a week ago. Speaker 11: Okay. Well, I'll just. Yeah, I'll just read it out. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, yeah. Speaker 14: Is that the one council I sent you some feedback on? You did, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Speaker 14: Okay, do you want to say it? Councillor Lorentson: So, that council prepare a scoped proportionate management plan.

02:00:00 For the Christmas overflow parking for 21 days instead of the full six to 12 month process costed in the report.

02:01:00 Councillor Phillips: We all know that's what it means, if that's okay. Councillor Wilson: I would maybe take out instead of the full six month process costed in the report because the report's not... Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, can we take that out? I'm just doing that one on the fly. Councillor Wilson: So what are we taking out? The stock for 21 days. Yep. Councillor Lorentson: Taking out that. Speaker 12: After 21 days, just reduce, yeah, take the rest out after 21 days.

02:02:00 Speaker 16: After 21 days, yeah. Speaker 11: I'm happy to supplement. Mayor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I just think we've just heard the conversation around the table that this is possible and that, I don't know, I threw it at Richard about a week ago just thinking that we don't need to prepare a full land management plan, whether it's necessary in fact to undergo the six to 12 month process,

02:03:00 whether a scaled one that's proportionate to the average. Whether it's the amount that's, you know, what's been requested, 21 days, it's not 365 days, it's seasonal, whether this is the more appropriate path to go. At the last meeting, January, there was a majority decision that an agreeance around the table that overflowed car parking was supported by the majority of councillors here around the table. So understanding that. And understanding also that over the last 20 years that we've allowed temporary seasonal car parking, the question is not whether there's support, whether the question to me is whether there's a way that we can actually deliver the car parking for the Christmas period. There is, and again, I don't want to, you know, resurface all our arguments, but there is a business community.

02:04:00 And a residential community that depend on the car parking, it is not the solution. And ideally, we would love that the park returned back to open space, but as again, discussed and debated over the last 20, 21 years, at the moment, there is no alternative. So the amendment in front of us gives us an opportunity to deliver what the majority voted for at the last meeting for overflowed car parking. At Lyons Park for the Christmas period, and we've heard around the table also that from the staff that it can be delivered if we agree on a scoped, scaled down, proportionate version that may or may not include consultation, given we've had 20, 21 years of consultation. Mayor Wilkie: What is an appropriate length of time for us to fulfill our legal obligations?

02:05:00 Under the Act, and conduct an appropriate land management plan. Speaker 16: Yeah, the report is just trying to go to preparing a robust plan. So I'm not aware of council trying to cut corners when it comes to doing land planning. So the report, the purpose of the report is to try and outline what a robust process would probably look like. Mayor Wilkie: And what would be required for a proper impartial and defensible? Process in terms of time and resources. Speaker 16: Well, we think six months would be would be time. Mayor Wilkie: And if we undertake a land management plan, would it be preempting the process to suggest that the outcome was going to be that paid car parking be allowed to continue? Councillor Wilson: I don't think that's an appropriate question to this point of order.

02:06:00 Mayor Wilkie: Well, I mean, do it is the outcome of the land management plan even known? Whether parking will be allowed or disallowed? Speaker 16: Probably the points I'd make is that the report isn't proposing to proceed to a land management plan is for noting. So that's a matter for the council to come to and it is highlighting those primary tests and, you know, it would be unwise to proceed to a plan if you felt that on balance it didn't meet those tests. So that's sort of the first step. So that's sort of the first stage of decision before embarking on a on a plan and sorry, I'll toss the train of thought with your question if you want to repeat it. Mayor Wilkie: That's all right. Just about the outcome of a land management plan is not necessarily known. Speaker 16: Yes, I mean, I think through the discussion, we've talked about the fact that there's been some consultation already that had mixed mixed response.

02:07:00 There's been petitions online. And it appears from a from staff perspective that it is a bit of a divided issue. So in in scoping and preparing the land plan, you're coming to a decision about on balance as a judgment call on a subjective test as to whether it is something that should proceed forward. So, you know, the net the net community benefit of the use. And I know that, you know, it was brought up in the context of a transport plan for for the area and and we're not taking the advice of the transport planning about dealing with the issues in that in that precinct. Councillor Phillips: I'm just now a little go back, confused again, because you mentioned earlier, the LMP wasn't considered because we were phasing out car parking.

02:08:00 So to the man's point, then the LMP is my understanding and I need to now really be clear on it is not to give us either considerations to what is intended purpose of the car park. It's actually to give us the options and to actually make it if there is car parking, then it's consistent. What we've got. We're actually not breaching any land act. If there's a choice between council not to proceed with it, which I think is inevitably where we landed last month, it actually means that we're just doing procedurally the right thing that doesn't predetermine an outcome. Speaker 16: Well, it shouldn't through the chair. If if the decision is not to proceed with the parking on on the reserve, then the land management plan isn't.

02:09:00 Triggered. I guess what we've been talking about is, you know, a robust process that involves consultation. You've got to respect that consultation process and where the outcome might fall. I think we've already highlighted that there are contrasting views on it. And so you kind of expect that to play out to some extent through preparing the land plan. And, you know, on balance, the council can can come to its decision. But. You know, both the previous resolution and the nature of this debate is kind of predetermining that, you know, we want to land plan for that use. It's not. Really respecting the process of of doing any more consultation on that. And that's council's prerogative. But. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson.

02:10:00 So at the last meeting, last round of meetings, there was the majority. Support for the overflow car parking and then a procedural motion put a roadblock to that decision. So question to the CEO. What weight does that decision carry? We're talking about ambiguity that these split decision. But there was a clear majority on the issue in the last round of meetings. What? So my question is, what weight does that decision play in terms of whether or not we progress? Mayor Wilkie: I'll just clarify. The procedural motion didn't proceed. It was dropped and it became part of the motion that was adopted by the majority that the we get further advice on whether a land management plan is appropriate or not, which is what it was. And that was supported by the majority. Sure. And the the the item to proceed with car parking.

02:11:00 In the general motion was struck out. We're waiting for this report to advise us about the land management plan. There's been no vote to proceed with parking. Speaker 12: So all we can operate on is what the resolutions have been. What happened during the meeting and what the outcome of the resolution. Councillor Lorentson: So the amendment that was struck out, but the amendment was carried by majority. What weight does that place? Speaker 6: I can answer that. Councillor Lorentson: It's on public record, but there was a majority who supported the overflow car parking. Speaker 12: But again, all we can operate on is what the absolute resolution of the council as a group is not the amendment as part of the resolution, because there's many, as you know, many amendments within a resolution is the final decision that we as officers, we have to work with. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: I'm happy for this to go through, but I see Diana's in the room and I was behind asking for an adjournment because.

02:12:00 I need to clarify that process because I have some questions for governance before we move forward. Speaker 14: And can I just add, I think I've mentioned before, just to make sure we haven't got any budget set aside for this work at all. So council would need to consider how it would fund any work, even a reduced scope process. We feel we've provided the minimum. And that's why there's a range, the minimum and the potential maximum in terms of costs and time to undertake that work. So that was what we requested to do. And we've presented that to council for its consideration. So just to make that clear. Mayor Wilkie: I have a question. If this proceeds on next week's ordinary, your interpretation, the council prepare a scope proportionate land management plan, it could involve the advice being that it would be six to 12.

02:13:00 It doesn't specify a timeframe or a cost. So scoped and proportionate. Does that, would you give us appropriate advice on what that would look like? Speaker 16: Well, we would, we would be doing, preparing a plan that was scoped and proportional. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Nothing excessive or undercut or, or cutting corners. Correct. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to adjourn and perhaps request wording advice from yourself, Richard. Maybe we could add subject to budget and resourcing, but I'm happy to work with you in the word, with the wording rather than throwing you in the deep end with a decision right, right away. So if that's okay with you, I'd like to move for an adjournment and then a discussion about how the wording.

02:14:00 Mayor Wilkie: Any, we're coming up to 1230 time where we normally break by lunch. Councillor Finzel, do you have a question? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I'd just like to add prior to the adjournment or lunch, whatever that turns out to be, note also that in that, our resolution last month, I put forward the amendment that we would get the Lions and all those, I just want that raised today, that we would call them and the relevant stakeholders to come together for further consultation around that. So just to put that fresh back in everyone's mind. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: That's, that's correct. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: And so that prompts another question. Start, your staff, are they already preparing to act on the motion, which involves a stakeholder reference group involving the Lions about how they might be involved and also staff are investigating, I think it was Councillor Phillips amendment about investigating satellite car parking and parking ride. So. So that works already underway as well.

02:15:00 We're already committed to that. Speaker 2: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Point being that they were, they raised those amendments. Those resources were committed on the understanding that there wasn't going to be car parking in the Lions Park. Councillor Lorentson: No. Speaker 12: There was no decision on the car parking. My, this is my, but in terms of the satellite parking and those sorts of things, and Councillor Finzel's amendment. Yeah. They are part of the resolution that we, and now has been adopted, so we now operate on now. If anything changes from there, we haven't necessarily activated it. Yeah. Councillor Phillips: I have a question about, I know that we can't do hypothetical, but let's say the words weren't struck out last month on the car park. What position was council going to do about the LNP that day if it went through that we were having car parking this Christmas? I can't answer that. Okay. I'm happy for it to be taken on notice.

02:16:00 Councillor Wilson: I just wanted to move an amendment to say subject to there being a land management plan. Yeah. That's right. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Yep. Well, we are close to lunch, and there's been a couple of requests for adjournments. Councillors, are you happy to adjourn? Yes. Yes. Okay. Well, we'll adjourn and be back at 12.47, at half an hour's time.

02:48:00 Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Okay, welcome back, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We've got, we had two speakers to that, and that's Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips, and we've got staff back as well, Richard and Dennis and CEO. Any questions of staff?

02:49:00 Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Questions about the amendment? No? Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: With the proportionate land management plan, does that need community engagement as well, or do you just down the sides and make a small plan? Speaker 16: Through the Chair, it's not my proposal, councillor. Councillor Lorentson: Through the Chair, I was going to just add a few words to the amendment, and that's why I requested an adjournment, so I could speak with the Director. Councillor Wilson: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: And could I just add to the end of that, subject to budget approval?

02:50:00 Mayor Wilkie: Well, to be consistent with rulings before, we've had, it's moved and seconded, and two people have already spoken to it. So let's debate this one, and then if it gets up, you can amend it. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question. Yes. So if the cost of a scoped proportion, a land management plan, is above $10,000, can you explain the process? And the question is through the CEO, just understanding, understanding orders that we actually address the cost of amendments and motions. Yep. Speaker 12: So my understanding of this is that we would have to bring it back, because it's outside of our budget. It's over even $10,000. It's still a budgeted item that needs to be either brought back to Council and agree at Council floor.

02:51:00 That's an unbudgeted item that we'll then deal with at BR2, as opposed to waiting for budget review to actually accommodate it. Councillor Lorentson: So my question is, are the words subject to budget consideration redundant, if that's the process anyway? Speaker 12: No, I think that would be fair to put it. Councillor Lorentson: I'm just, fair to put it. Okay. No worries. I'm happy. Speaker 12: We'll put something like that in there, so it gives some clarity. Councillor Lorentson: Some direction. Yeah. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: Question linking LMP to Christmas flow to the CEO. So if we end with a budget, the next step would be how much it costs to be for an LMP. Gives us a really good scope of around what the use is and what we want to proceed with. Every year, would it come back to $100,000? So it gets, let's say we jump ahead for a second.

02:52:00 We have an LMP. How will the Christmas overflow parking be considered in that process? Speaker 12: My simple view of this is that the LMP would consider overflow parking as one of its considerations as to why we would need the LMP. And then it would come back to. So the LMP would be. Okay. What are the considerations for the car park? Car parking being that it's a part of the use. It has an impact on the grass. It has an impact on the space. That would then come back to council to say it's an inconsistent use, but are we prepared to actually approve that as an inconsistent use? That's my understanding. So that then once it's become an inconsistent use, whether it then becomes a every year, we have to review them. That's something I would have to do. So that's okay.

02:53:00 Councillor Phillips: Pull up question then is, does that sort of then an LMP sort of protect future councils 20 years from now to give us actually some solid legislation to protect the place and make council at the time determine what's consistent and inconsistent? Speaker 14: Yeah. Through the chair. It does. So the land management plan, you know, essentially attached to the land itself, the parcel, and it provides the framework for the land management plan. The framework of the management plan around supporting those inconsistent actions on the land. It also will highlight the consistent actions, but it's looked as a framework. And then it also will potentially include management action. So what are the things that council has identified it must do to ensure that those inconsistent actions is managed in the public interest and that it doesn't diminish the reserve purpose. So that will be ongoing until council wants to a undertake a review of that. And make modifications. It may want to go out and do further consultation at a point in time.

02:54:00 It doesn't have to, but that will continue to run with the land unless council either amend it or revoke it in a way, but it will stick with the land. So you won't need to reapply for a land management plan every year. It'll continue to run. Councillor Phillips: But then, so it continues, but let's say, because it's August, there was a decision for car parking. This is Christmas. Next year, we just say, bring the car parking back because we've gone, or can we go to consultation or like it gives us time under the act to kind of do the work, is that? Speaker 14: Yeah. So, so from a land act point of view, once you have a land management plan in place, that gives council a surety from a land act point of view that that activity can occur and has got a management plan in relation to it. So in terms of the decision, say the Go Noosa report, each year council can make decisions

02:55:00 around, does it want to do it at Easter and Christmas or is it just Easter or is it just Christmas or is it both? So you have that flexibility, I guess, in terms of the frequency, but the land management plan needs to create the framework for that to occur. And once you've established that, then really it's a decision of, because there may be reasons where the, you know, Lions Club may not want to do it one year, you're not obliged to do it consistently. Councillor Phillips: Okay. So if there was a trigger in the LNP around in two years, four years time, we have a one way loop and the traffic's flowing and everyone's using more than 75,000 residents or people, not residents, are using public transport, we could potentially then say it's now inconsistent to have that car park. Yeah. Speaker 16: Yeah. Yeah. And that's giving permission for that inconsistent use. So it can either still sit there in the framework existing in the land management plan, or you

02:56:00 could abandon the land plan if there was a need to do that. But, you know, council can cease the inconsistent use in the future. There's no, no issues about that. Councillor Warrison. Councillor Lorentson: My question is, can we prepare a land management plan? Specifically for the 21 days, forget everything else, and alongside that, can we then still go ahead with a borderland management plan process? So again, I think where I'm coming from is this urgency, time is of the essence. We want this, some surety for the, whether it's the lines or how they're going to be, Hastings Street Association, some sort of certainty by say November, because it takes at least a month of lead time. So can we prepare a plan that's just scoped specifically for the 21 days, scale proportionately

02:57:00 to the limited duration frequency and long operating history of that use, and distinct and separate from the borderland management plan process, which still remains just a matter for Noosa Council to consider. And do as a long-term thing. Speaker 14: Through the Chair, I mean, there's only really one process, and I take your point about you just wanting to keep it very contained to just the aspect of the overflow parking. The reality is that the purpose of a land management plan is to look at the reserve itself in its entirety, and obviously the activities that council is seeking to put a management framework in place, and obviously a big part of that will be potentially engaging with the community about that, and also consulting with First Nations people as well, obviously with our obligations under the Native Title Act. So there's, we have to do that, I guess, regardless.

02:58:00 So there isn't really a shorter version. We either do it in its entirety, and we can do further reviews in the future, but there's no real sort of short version of it. We just need to make sure that it's robust and defendable, withstands judicial reviews, because again, we're aware there might be some different views. So we want to make sure that it's defendable and withstands the public scrutiny it needs to. Councillor Lorentson: From our previous LNPs, have they been prepared internally or by external consultants? Speaker 16: Both, the major ones have both been involved consultants, and obviously we work with them. So there was a sport and rec specialist on the board. We had the Noosa District Sports LNP, and we had planners involved on the foreshore LNP

02:59:00 place design group. Mayor Wilkie: The significance of the park as a Shire-wide park, how does that play into the size and scope of an appropriate land management plan? Speaker 16: Yeah, I think it's a relevant consideration that, you know, we talked about community consultation. It's probably not the sort of site where you would, you know, make a determination about what the community wants and go straight to that. So it is a very important park in the scheme of things in our recreation reserves. So I think it goes to the process of consultations. Mayor Wilkie: And... I think in terms of avoiding unintended consequences, say as a result of the land management plan, car parking is seen as a consistent use on the reserve, how do we avoid future councils then wanting to have multi-storey car parking on site, which has been raised by community

03:00:00 members in the past? Is it opening the door to that? And if so, how do we guard against it? Speaker 16: No, I don't think it is because, you know, buildings would need to be part of the plan as well. So the plan wouldn't be calling the overflow parking a consistent use, it would be recognising it as an inconsistent use and the extent to which it can occur and how it would be managed. So, you know, some of the things we've talked about is restoring the park after wet weather and damage to the park and so forth. So, but yeah, it wouldn't smooth the way, as it were, for a multi-storey car park. And I also mentioned that, you know, in a scenario where that was... I don't know if it was the council's preference, then the reserve would have a different purpose. It would be a reserve for parking, which we have around the Shire. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Morris. I'm going to the state guidelines that have been attached and they support a scaled approach. They say that the trustees have flexibility in the form, content and level of detail of

03:01:00 management plan and nothing that I could find in the guideline of the Act requires that the full, you know, the full process, including independent legal review and broad community consultation. If it's a non-permanent use, which what we're talking about is seasonal, temporary, is that correct? Have I read that correctly? Speaker 16: I think it's contextual. Everything we've discussed is about the context of this park and, yeah, in the context of a park that has a lot of staff. A lot of stakeholders, a lot of users, a lot of things that it supports and in a key location like that. Our discussion has been about what a robust plan looks like and we're not aware of a process where you can carve out a particular use and just deal with that and in the same way NUSA

03:02:00 wouldn't approach a planning scheme aspect by just looking at one land use, you know, the right thing to do on that. The right thing to do on this land is to do a proper plan. So I think when it talks about scale and proportion, it's in the context of the use and the location of the reserve. Councillor Lorentson: So I'd go back to my normal, my previous question is, and again, the outcome that I'm trying to achieve is how we can go through community consultation and approval. Okay. So is a scaled LMP specifically scoped for the 21-day parking that sits alongside the

03:03:00 border LMP, is that possible? Speaker 14: No, I don't believe it is. No, I don't believe it is. I think it's, again, Councillor, I think it's just going to be extremely tight. We've given a timeframe. Particularly when we know we need to engage with the community. We need to engage with people. We need to do a bit of a piece of work of pulling all the information together and undertaking an analysis, including a legal review. We need to do potentially some workshops with councillors. So it will take some time to work through that process to make sure we've got a robust plan in place, because it does plan the long-term activity on that reserve. So we need to think forward as well, and things like the designation of the park, we need to make sure that it's robust enough to acknowledge council's future intentions as well, not just the now. So our concern is that would be. It would be an extremely rushed and potentially may compromise the integrity of the process

03:04:00 by forcing it to occur and fast forwarding community consultation, which may have contrasting views on that to be really, really rushed. Councillor Phillips: Councillor Ford. Question. Why do we have to do the consultation before the LNP? Because you can have it. That's what I was trying to get to before. We could have it for this year, because we're under timeframe, but because we test the car park every year, you could consult when we've got time and resources and money on it, that you've got the framework that gives us the ability to say yes or no. But at the moment, if we don't, it's still a no, and there's no consultation at all because we refer to the DMP consultation, and then this never comes back up. Speaker 14: Is that. So the process obviously does refer to stakeholder consultation as being a key step, but as councillors, councillor Amelia said, it's not a mandatory requirement. We would say this would be an important step, particularly when we're talking about the

03:05:00 public interest test. You really would want some good sound advice, and I've heard around the table some thoughts around how you would frame those particular questions, because some of the questions to date haven't been very specific to the solar flow parking aspect. So you would look to make that quite clear to your community about we want to continue this ongoing. Let's get some feedback around that and understand what the community's views are on that, and whether there's management actions that can be put in place to address some concerns or risks that could occur, or is there an overwhelming position from the community that may form a contrary view to that. So we just don't know until we've done an updated sort of more scoped engagement on that. Question. Councillor Phillips: Question. How did we get to the point where we didn't get to that? Where we can arrive at, that it's, that we take it away if we can argue that it's already

03:06:00 there? Debating staff. No, I'm questioning. I'll get to a question. Let me have a think on it. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. To keep things moving, Councillors, I'll talk to the amendment. I'm not going to support it. I want to just raise a point that the overflow parking, if I understand, is going to be, Those in favour, as they said at the last meeting round, may only be for this year and then we may discontinue it. It's accepted that it's only a temporary thing and that you may just want to get through this Christmas and then it may never happen again. Because there are other alternative means of getting down there. And the concourse was a great example of how tens of thousands of people can get down to Hastings Street at a peak event without there being parking in the Lions Park, without even parking be available in Hastings Street, without even parking being available in Noosa Woods, and without even the 07 065 loop bus being available.

03:07:00 There are more people than ever getting down to this precinct. You do not need overflow parking in the Lions Park. It's inconsistent. Inconsistent, unlawful use to continue. Now, there are two ways we can go. If you want to pursue this unlawful, inconsistent use, it is the pathway of excess cost, unbudgeted, unscheduled public consultation and a land management plan process. It is chaotic and unnecessary. Or you can agree to not approve car parking in the Lions Park this Christmas. That's the way I sense it. And you avoid the cost and the confusion and disruption of a land management plan. You can avoid all the cost of this, this unscheduled, unbudgeted process by just doing the right thing and not approve car parking in the Lions Park this Christmas.

03:08:00 Given that record numbers are getting down there by the viable mass transit alternative, which is the 065 bus, that's one bus alone. Many more thousands are arriving. And people are continuing to drive down as well. Personal choice is respected. People can still drive and catch the bus and ride bikes and walk. Record numbers are still accessing that precinct. And that's what it's all about. Allowing access to that precinct at peak period. The Lions Parking is not needed, councillors. Please consider not going down the path of L&P process, biting the bullet, accepting that the time is up for this temporary car parking. And not approving it. And avoid excess unbudgeted cost and a disruption to the public consultation schedule. Councillor Phillips: Question to the Mayor. Yeah. Just to clarify something that you just said. Yeah. Around us proceeding with something that isn't lawful.

03:09:00 And that's not the exact words you used. Inconsistent. But inconsistent. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: We actually said. Councillor Phillips: Unlawful, inconsistent, lawful. Yeah. Sorry. I'm just interested to know that because. What's the question? I'm asking a question. You've made a point that we're already making a decision that's unlawful. Nice. And yet the land management plan which is on the table is actually what makes it lawful because we can say it's inconsistent. So I'm just. Mayor Wilkie: What is the question? Councillor Phillips: Well you've inferred that we as councillors are making an illegal decision and it's incorrect. Mayor Wilkie: What you're saying there. It is currently an unlawful, inconsistent, which is currently unlawful and inconsistent. You can. If you want to pursue a use on the park that is currently unlawful and inconsistent, you are incurring unbudgeted cost, unbudgeted and unbudgeted consultation process. So it is currently an unlawful, inconsistent use. If you wish to pursue that, you also incur unbudgeted costs and an unscheduled consultation

03:10:00 process. It's very disruptive. Why have all that chaos when we can just do, in my opinion, the right thing and not approve overflow parking in the Lions Park? It's very simple. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Can I ask a question to you as well? Why does it cause chaos? Mayor Wilkie: Chaos in the sense that we have not budgeted for this, councillors. We know how rigorous the budget process was. That means we have to find money from somewhere, we have to find, it may involve a budgeted project being dropped. We have to find time in the community consultation schedule to slot that in. We have limited staff. There may be other community consultation projects scheduled for this period, which will have to take a back seat if council wants to make this a priority. It's chaotic in many aspects and we can avoid all the chaos and disruption and unbudgeted cost if we just not allow car parking in the Lions Park.

03:11:00 That's the point I'm making. For your consideration. I know I'm probably outnumbered here, but I have to have my say. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment, which the councillor, Laurence, in her schedule, she would like to also amend further if it gets up. Yes, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: This land management plan should have been in place for years already. Yes, we have been acting unlawfully by not having one. It's about time that we actually became compliant. It would not cause chaos at all. It's a land management plan, it's a compliance exercise, it's an operational piece of compliance work that should have been done already. We shouldn't even be debating whether it needs to be done. We may continue to use Lions Park for overflowing indefinitely. There's no decision on the table that it will stop next year. I've certainly not been part of that decision.

03:12:00 We may want to use the park for other reasons that are inconsistent with its nominated use as a recreation reserve. It's inconsistent, it's not unlawful once you have a land management in place. The land management plan actually acknowledges that the use is inconsistent, but that there is a management plan in place to protect the reserve from that use. We already have plans in place every time we use the park for parking. The transport team already has a plan in place of how to deal with that use. How to protect the grass, how to maintain the park. I believe most of the information that we would need to prepare the plan is probably already available. There's templates on the state planning websites that help you to prepare it to make sure you know exactly what to include. There's an element of flexibility in how much detail you need to go to. We already have the information. If we want to have any sort of flexibility in how we use the park in the future, then we need the land management plan in place. And we need to be compliant with the Land Act.

03:13:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Finzel: Can I just ask a question from our left field? In May, we got a workshop on local government infrastructure plan review, which included the classification and hierarchy of the parks across the Shire. Noosa Lions Park was one of those parks. I've just looked up, is this correct, that in terms of review of a local government infrastructure plan requires public consultation with the local government? Is that correct? Mayor Wilkie: Could you repeat the question, Councillor? Councillor Finzel: A local government infrastructure plan review. Does that require a process that involves community consultation to ensure that the plans are in line with the needs and aspirations of the local community? Speaker 14: Kim? Sorry, Kim. Sorry. Speaker 7: I know, but if you're going out for consultation. Yes, that's correct. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Finzel.

03:14:00 Yes. A local government infrastructure plan does require community consultation. As you know, we are in the process of our five year review of our legib. Councillors have been subject to a number of workshops, a number of workshops and a number of briefing notes about the legib, one of those being in May about the recreation parks. That's correct. And yes, we are now airing that documentation. It needs to go through a state review and an independent review, and then it will go to community consultation. Speaker 4: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Refresh my memory. Have we got budget for the engagement process or not? Have we approved budget for that? Yes. Speaker 7: Yes, we have. It's budgeted within the planning scheme budget. Councillor Finzel: Yep. Is there opportunity to do that?

03:15:00 It's not a budget for the land management plan in conjunction with the local government infrastructure review. Can they be run simultaneously? Speaker 14: Through the Chair, there could be some challenges in relation to that. Given the different nature of the roles and functions, it may need a bit more thought to that. The one concern I have is, do you confuse the public around what the purpose of the consultation is? You would need to make that really, really clear in any engagement of, there's two sort of aspects. One is regarding the infrastructure planning piece, and then one is around a land management plan piece. The other aspect, I guess, is the refers to sort of Shire-wide elements, whereas this is very much focused on one particular site. But we could give it some thought of how that could work, but my concern would be is, would

03:16:00 you confuse the public by having a broader Shire-wide local government infrastructure planning consultation exercise, and then include one minor element relating to the Lyons Park as an addition to that, and would that potentially muddy the waters for the community in that regard? Councillor Phillips: We did that in the DMP consultation, though. So that was a Shire-wide consultation, but we included this in it. Speaker 14: As an example. As an example. Yeah. One site. So I'm not saying no. I'm just sharing my initial thoughts, is that if you're going out on the infrastructure, and then you include that one part, would that be really well understood by the community? Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Director Rawlings?

03:17:00 Speaker 7: What my comments would be, these are two very separate processes under two different legislations, two different acts. I think it would be challenging and potentially problematic to confuse them. In fact, it may work against what some of the Councillors are trying to achieve. The local government infrastructure plan is, one of its components is about Shire-wide open space and recreation needs. So we're going out to say that the Lyons Park is a Shire-wide park to meet the recreation and open space needs of the community. To then run a process in parallel that may say something different, I think could be problematic. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: I do. And I want to firstly start by just referencing some of the statements that have been made

03:18:00 around the table, that the overflow car parking is in fact unlawful. We've had one legal opinion saying that it's inconsistent. We've had an advisor telling us it's inconsistent. We've had one legal opinion saying that it's inconsistent. The legal opinion that I have received has said that it is a permitted use and incidental to the reserve's purpose. And when we look at the reserve purpose, it's not just to facilitate access to Lyons Park, but my understanding is that it's supposed to facilitate the enjoyment and access to the broader assets of that locality. So I would love a question on notice, whether my interpretation is correct or not.

03:19:00 And I would like to put that question on notice and receive a response before Thursday's ordinary meeting, because there's been a lot of conversation. The amendment that I put forward in terms of whether in fact it is inconsistent or incidental or ancillary failed. But I am still struggling with the conversation around this table that it's an unlawful use and inconsistent with the purposes of the reserve. So question on notice, and I would love that answered before Thursday's ordinary meeting. Mayor Wilkie: The amendment to the vote. Those in favour. Councillor Lorentson: Excuse me. I'd like to speak to the amendment. Mayor Wilkie: I thought you'd finished. Keep going, please. Councillor Lorentson: So back to the debate that we've got around the table. We have consensus around the table that the majority of us that represent the community support the overflow car parking for 21 days.

03:20:00 We have the duty as councillors to explore every available option. We saw that recently with when we have community at our front doors, you know, we've got an easy way out. We've got a hard way to explore. Yes, if we may come back saying that the 21 day scope proportionate land management plan isn't going to achieve the outcome we want, but we owe it to our community to explore every available option. That's why we were put around this table. We weren't put around to rubber stamp staff recommendations. We weren't put around to take the easy way out. We're put here to do the hard yards. And in front of us. And I probably may amend it, but I'm still approving the amendment that we do what we can, understanding the privilege we have to be seated at the chairs around this table to help support our community. And I reached for the concourse and I totally applaud Hastings Street Association for what

03:21:00 they did. But there were no buses where I live. I walked from Sunshine Beach. I didn't catch a bus. And if I had my surfboard or my nieces or my nephews and their prams and their kids, or if there was someone that I knew with a wheelchair, there is no way on earth I would be catching a 50 cent bus to go into Hastings Street. So I just think it's compare apples with apples. And when we use analogies, make sure they're relevant to the context of what we're discussing. At the moment, we're talking about a bus. At the moment, we're discussing how we can enable our business community and our residents, how we can enable them to participate and enjoy the beautiful assets of our natural park, our river and our national parks and beaches. And a 21 day scoped plan for Christmas overflow parking for 21 days until the time that we

03:22:00 find a working alternative is the only option we've got and we owe it to our community to give it a go. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Put the amendment. Those in favour. Councillor Phillips, Wilson, Lorentson. Those against. Councillor Wegener, Finzel, Wilkie. The amendment is lost on my casting vote. Move another amendment. Another amendment. The same amendment. You can't move the same amendment. It would be substantially the same. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Move another amendment. Kathy, I think I've sent that through to you. And the amendment reads whether section 52 AA of the Land Act 1994, oh sorry, that council obtain written legal advice on whether section 52 AA of the Land Act 1994 applies to the trustee action.

03:23:00 And if it does not, the specific statutory basis for that conclusion with the outcome reported back to council before any further resourcing is committed. I'll just get rid of the last sentence. With the outcome reported back to council, full stop. Thank you, Kathy. Speaker 13: So, leaving that. Is that right? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Thank you. And I'd like to also table section 52 AA and read it out. Could I get that on the screen, Kathy, or not? Okay. Section, and can I just read it?

03:24:00 Mayor Wilkie: We'll get you, if you're happy with the wording, Councillor Lorentson, and we'll get you a seconder. Yes. Someone to proceed. I'm prepared to second the amendment. I'll second. That was Councillor Phillips. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: And I'll start by reading the Land Act 1994, section 52 AA. Approval of inconsistent actions. 52 AA, approval of inconsistent actions. The minister may approve the trustee of trust land taking an action under section 52 1 that is inconsistent with the purpose for which the trust land is dedicated. If satisfied, the action will not, one, diminish the purpose or, B, adversely affect the public interest. Two, the approval may be given on application by the trustee of the trust land on the minister's own initiative. And, B, subject to conditions. Three, despite section 52 2A, the trustee may take an inconsistent action if the minister has, under subsection 1, approved the trustee taking the action.

03:25:00 And, B, the taking of the land. The action complies with the conditions of the minister's approval. Councillors, the report only looks at one pathway, the management plan process under section 52 AB. It doesn't mention section 52 AA at all. The department's letter, and I acknowledge the department's letter of 4th of August, doesn't fill that gap either. It answers a general question about whether any other approval mechanism exists. But it doesn't ask a specific question about section 52 AA. That advice also came from a senior land officer, not a lawyer. Council has written to the minister about this part before in 2023, but never asked about this specific section. If section 52 AA is available, it could offer a simpler, reversible approval, conditions, set dates and annual review, instead of the full LNP process.

03:26:00 Again, councillors, before we commit to the bigger process, six to 12 months, $30,000 to $75,000 of not our money, or we pay, of RatePay's money, we should know for certain whether the shorter pathway actually exists. Mayor Wilkie: Can you finish, councillor? Thank you. Yeah. Question of staff. Could you clarify this, whether this applies to council as a trustee, or is this applied to private ownership, private owners, or private trustees? Speaker 16: Through the chair, the answer is quite simple in that that provision of the act is where the trustee is some body other than the state or a statutory body.

03:27:00 So the clause that follows. Is the provisions where the trustee is a state or a statutory body. So the provisions that we've quoted, and the whole legislative framework was reviewed by council solicitor, the provisions that are quoted are those that apply to us as a statutory body. The provisions that were read out in the preceding clause is where the trustee is some other type of entity. So in that scenario, the ability to make a land management plan is not divulged to that type of trustee, and the minister retains those powers. If there were a provision for the minister to be making a decision about an LNP for us as trustee, he or she would still be looking for a land management plan to that process to be undertaken.

03:28:00 For he or she to make that decision. Mayor Wilkie: So this refers to trustees other than statutory bodies of which the council is one? Correct. Councillor Lorentson: So a question to staff, 52AA2, the approval may be given on application by the trustee of the trust land. Yes. So council is the trustee. Yes. Speaker 14: Well, Councillor, I think what Dennis has highlighted is that a trustee may be a different entity. It might be a private person who's got a lease over state land. So it's a broader provision, whereas 52AB is specifically relating to where the trustee is either the state or

03:29:00 a statutory body. So you'll recall the changes in the legislation in 2024, which is focused in on alleviating the state from being involved in lots of local government decision making regarding inconsistent uses. So this is very intentional that they have devolved those powers to local governments to make decisions regarding inconsistent actions on the basis that they go through a land management plan exercise. The viewpoint on this is also informed by our own legal counsel. So the legal counsel's interpretation of the provisions and the statutory application of that, as well as further verbal conversations with the department who have confirmed that's the same application. So 52AB is the appropriate section relevant to council as the statutory body for assessing and evaluating inconsistent uses. So even in the event council wished

03:30:00 to write to the minister, they can go through that. And the advice from the department is the minister would want to see evidence of a land management plan that supports the decision making. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask, have we tested that by actually writing to the minister and requesting a section 52AA ministerial approval? We haven't done that yet. Can I, on notice? Speaker 14: We can do that if council wishes to do that. We've got that advice from the department, though, but we can ask the minister now in lieu of the department staff. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I would like to make that request and move a further amendment addressing that. Speaker 14: Yeah, correct. But the provisions need to be read in conjunction. Mayor Wilkie: So just to clarify, I'm looking at section 52AB, inconsistent actions by particular trustees. It says this section applies if the trustee of trust land is the state.

03:31:00 Or a statutory body. Council is this. This is what applies to us. Speaker 16: Correct. Mayor Wilkie: Despite section 52AA, the trustee of the trust land might take an action under section 52, that is inconsistent with the purpose for which the land is dedicated as a reserve granted in trust, if the trustee has prepared a management plan for the land. So it's different conditions apply for a statutory body. Speaker 16: Yes. But. Yeah. I don't know. You know, the tests are the same in both. Yeah. And, you know, if there were an avenue to be circumventing 52AB and going to the minister, he or she would still, wouldn't be making a decision in the absence of a land management plan properly prepared. So it doesn't, it doesn't result, you know, avoid the issue of preparing a land management plan for the site. Speaker 12: Can we just take five minutes to.

03:32:00 The legals of this? Yeah. We're just, we're, we're doing things on the fly here. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 12: Legal speakers. Mayor Wilkie: All right. We'll have an adjournment for five minutes. We'll get some legal clarification. Thank you. Speaker 4: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Adjournment? Adjournment. Just for five minutes. Okay.

03:45:00 Okay, welcome back. We've had time to get some legal advice. Is there anything staff would like to share? Speaker 14: Through the Chair, I just wanted to clarify a couple of points around Section 52AA. And as mentioned, we've sought some advice from our legal counsel. I just wanted to read that out for clarity for counsellors.

03:46:00 Although Section 52AA of the Land Act remains in force, It continues to provide for ministerial approval of inconsistent actions. The department's advice is that local government trustees cannot rely on 52AA of the Act as an alternative to the 52AB management plan process. Accordingly, as a matter of risk management and statutory administration, Council should proceed on the basis that a land management plan is required before authorising the proposed inconsistent use. Mayor Wilkie: Are you able to hear that, Councillors? Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. So, question, Richard. Richard, just a yes or no. Is section 52AA a possible option? Speaker 14: Now, through the Chair, it is a possible option. It remains in force, as mentioned in the advice. But the correct statutory interpretation is that AA and AB should be read in conjunction. So, for statutory authorities, a land management plan piece should inform a request to the minister as well.

03:47:00 It's part of that. Councillor Lorentson: So, if both options, pathways, are available, which is contrary to all the discussion we've had so far, why was that not put in the report? Speaker 14: Because the minister will still want us to satisfy those two key tests around the diminishment of the reserve purpose and the no adverse impact on the public interest, which is basically what's outlined in the report. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: So, section 52AA, as read, makes no mention. First of all, it says application by the trustee of the trust land, and we are trustee of the trust land, and therefore section 52AA, despite what's already been said, is an available pathway. The section also mentions nothing about a land management plan.

03:48:00 So, my question is... Can we specifically write to the minister and ask the specific question whether under section 52AA, a land management plan is required, and if so, whether a full land management plan is required or a scoped, proportionate LNP, specifically targeted to the 21-day period? Because, as I've read the Act, and there's no requirement. Speaker 14: Through the Chair, we can write to the minister, absolutely. Again, I just wanted to highlight that I've been in touch with the department. As of recent years yesterday, based on your revised motion, that they would be wanting that exercise to be undertaken to inform the decision,

03:49:00 but we can write to the minister. Speaker 12: Thank you. You've got our advice, councillors. I think it's your decision now to decide whether you want us to write to the minister or not, but you've got the advice. Thank you very much. Mayor Wilkie: And just to clarify, absolutely, 52AB says this section applies if the trustee of Trustland is the state or a statutory body. That includes council, yes? Speaker 14: Yes, that's correct. Mayor Wilkie: And so despite section 52A, the trustee of the Trustland may take an action that is inconsistent with the purpose for which the land is dedicated if the trustee has prepared a management plan for the land that states how the action would not diminish the purpose or adversely affect the public interest. So your unequivocal advice that 52AB is the relevant section of legislation that pertains to a statutory body, which is a council. Not just any old trustee. Speaker 16: Yes.

03:50:00 I'd also just make the point that, you know, these sort of operational matters, if we write to the minister, are dealt with by his or her delegates. And, you know, the discussion yesterday was with the delegates. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. We have an amendment before us to which only Councillor Lorentson has spoken. Any questions, further debate? Councillor Wilson: Can I ask a question, sorry? Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Wilson: I don't want to move on from this, but can I just ask, the wording in section 52AB, when it says despite section 52A, the trustee of the land, blah, blah, blah, does that mean that overrides 52AA? Speaker 16: So with which? Councillor Wilson: Usually. Speaker 16: It's 52A. Councillor Wilson: 52A. Speaker 16: 52A. Councillor Wilson: Does the word despite mean that?

03:51:00 Councillor Lorentson: Point of order, we're asking a legal question to a council officer. Mayor Wilkie: Now, I'll allow, this is a very pertinent question. The question is, in section 52AB, does section 2 of 52AB, it says despite section 52A, does that mean it overrides section 52A? Okay. Councillor Wilson: That's a different section. Speaker 14: So, yeah, just being clear, so 52, 2, it's got no A in it, are you referring to, 52, 2, are you, or are you saying 52? Mayor Wilkie: So we're looking at section 52AB. Speaker 14: Okay, yep. Mayor Wilkie: Part 2. Part 2 of section 52AB. Speaker 14: Oh, despite section 52, 2A, so that's actually above there, which is, however, the action must be consistent with the purpose for which the land is dedicated as a reserve or granted in trust.

03:52:00 Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 14: So it's a different section, yeah. So it's basically just saying that we must, the action must be consistent with the reserve purpose. Councillor Lorentson: What was your question? 52AA, it's number 2. Speaker 14: It's a different section, yeah. Sorry, councillor. Too many A's and B's. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillors, in order to move this on, I'm not going to support the, the amendment, we've had legal advice about the relevant section that applies, it's 52AB, 52AA applies to trustees other than the council, we've heard that unequivocally from staff and we've got advice from the department as well, I understand there may be more amendments to come, which may be more specific, so we can, yeah, I think it's, we've had the advice, we don't have the advice, we don't have the advice, we don't have the advice, we don't have the advice, we don't have the advice, we don't have

03:53:00 need to be asking for advice for which we've already, advice for which we've received, received. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson will you wish to close? Um, I will. Uh, trying to think of how to put this. Um, there were two pathways available under the land Act in which we could go to the minister with what's an inconsistent use. Only one pathway was reported in the report. It's for that very reason when we talk about trust within community, given recent events, when we talk about due diligence, and when we talk about there's been so much confusion around this table. What's lawful? What's unlawful? What's consistent? What's inconsistent? What's incidental? What's auxiliary?

03:54:00 We were told by the Mayor just a little while ago there was only one available pathway. We adjourned and then found out no, there's section 52 AA still available. We were told by the Mayor that Council is not a trustee as specified under section 52 AA. Then we found out after adjournment that we are in fact trustee of the trust land. So it's for those very reasons that we should. In the spirit of building community trust in our decision making and not compromising the integrity of this table that we seek, obtain written legal advice or a full right to the Minister to check that what we're actually making a decision on is the only available option. That everything that's been said around the table is in fact the only option. And this is to me just.

03:55:00 due diligence. It's what we must do as councillors to discharge our duties of governance oversight. So I will be supporting this. I will also move if this doesn't get through that we write to the Minister. But it's for the very reasons of all this discussion and confusion around the table that we need to take one more step before we progress with any decision today. Mayor Wilkie: Put the amendment those in favour. Council Phillips, Councillor Logan OKís. Council Wagoner, Council Finzel, Council Wilson, Councillor Wilkie, the amendment is lost. Council Phillips.

03:56:00 Councillor Phillips: Okay, that item A, B, C and D will be added to read. C, approve commencement of the preparation of a land management plan for Noosa Heads Lions Park in accordance with the requirements of the Land Act and the Queen's Guide Line for managing actions consistent and inconsistent with the purpose of trust land. B, receive a further report detailing the scope, costs, funding implications and proposed timeline for the consultation and the preparation of the land management plan prior to the commencement of the substantive plan preparation works. And C, approve the proposed temporary car park arrangements for the 2026-27 financial year. And D, write to the Minister advising them Council are working on the LNP and requesting approval for this year. Councillor Lorentson: Happy to second.

03:57:00 Mayor Wilkie: Question before the first speaker speaks. Section C of that amendment, contrary to the advice we've received, we need to have an LNP before we can approve car park. Is this about? Councillor Phillips: That's why D is there. Mayor Wilkie: About place? Councillor Phillips: That's why D is there because C and D go together. Mayor Wilkie: Yes, I understand. My question is approving proposed temporary car parking. Councillor Phillips: Mm-hmm. Mayor Wilkie: Preempts the outcome of the LNP. And if we want to pursue, we can't approve, the legislation is very clear, we can't approve temporary car parking without having done the LNP first. That's the legislative requirements. Councillor Wilson: We've done it in the past.

03:58:00 Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. So, unless you wish to strike out, we'll see. But. Or test it. Speaker 12: My thinking is it's not to approve, but it is to investigate, because you need to have a reason to do the LNP. So, the reason to do the LNP is the proposed temporary car parking. So, whether approve is the right word or another word in there. Councillor Phillips: I'm happy to take approve. Speaker 12: But you've got to have, you're proposing to have a temporary car parking for the LNP to be triggered. Otherwise, you're not going to get it. You've got, you've got reasons to do an LNP if you want to, but you don't have to. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. So, investigate the proposed temporary car parking instead of approve. Councillor Phillips: Yeah. Because what I was trying to do is put that, what the CEO just explained. Speaker 14: Mm-hmm.

03:59:00 Can I make a suggestion? Yeah. My, my thoughts are with, with your, your A, clause A. Mm-hmm. The approved commenced preparation land management plan for New Zed Lions Park. Director Walsh: Mm-hmm. Speaker 14: With the inclusion of temporary overflow parking. Because I assume that's the specific. Oh, that's what I'm trying to achieve. Okay. That's the specific piece you're wanting to be incorporated into a land management plan. That's correct. Mm-hmm. Because that way you're not inferring approval of the activity. Yes. Yeah. For the, for the basis of temporary overflow car parking. And take out C. Take out C. Yeah. A approves it in the absence of funding. Yeah. That's right. Dennis's point is the only thing by approving the preparation, or I guess the B is the scope. So, so I'm just trying to work out the. Councillor Phillips: Do you see, do you do B as A? Because it needs to work in that order. Speaker 14: Potentially.

04:00:00 Councillor Phillips: So if you could switch A and B and then see how that reads, which is, so I just want to go step by step from today. So what we want, or to be really clear on next steps, we are, we're asking for the costs because we've heard between 30 and 70,000. That's 0.002% of our budget. So maybe we need to come back with a report on the costs because you would need to ask, request for the approval. So that can all be in that. And then we understand the timeline around how long the land management plan will take. Speaker 12: Essentially what this. Report is, but it's a, it's a, you would say more detailed in terms of cost and scope. Councillor Phillips: Yeah, because I think we didn't, but this report didn't start the LNP, did it?

04:01:00 So I'm asking for us to do that. I think where, where I land is LNP has to happen. So let's approve the commencement of the preparation of that. Include the temporary overflow car park because you have to have the reason why you're putting, applying for the LNP. So thank you. Richard, that's right. Of course, with the requirements, that's all right. And then because we're now August, if we write to the minister advising council or working on the LNP, and because there was a decision last month that we were going to approve it this year, and I know that was changed, but that gets us this year. Receive a further report detailing. Oh, that's been. Mayor Wilkie: You wanted that to be first. Councillor Phillips: Put that first, please. Number C, Kathy. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah.

04:02:00 Speaker 14: Would a councillor be in relation to like a budget? Councillor Phillips: We've got BR1 coming, so would it, no? Speaker 14: BR2, sorry. BR2, so we could prepare a package as part of BR2 with the scoping costs. For undertaking that for council's deliberation. Speaker 12: We can bring it, we can bring it before council could agree it and then it gets brought in to BR2. Oh yeah. Speaker 11: It's an option. Yes. Sooner than BR2. Pardon? Sooner than BR2, sorry. Speaker 12: Yeah, that's right. So we can bring it in, council agree it, and then we just bring it into the budget as such. Yeah, okay. Councillor Phillips: I'm happy with that approach if that's. Mayor Wilkie: Can we request approval from them, even though we haven't done the line?

04:03:00 Speaker 14: Through the chair, I think, I mean, we can write to them. I think it's problematic on the basis of the advice we've had to date. But, yeah. Okay, question then. Councillor Phillips: What I was trying to do is, sorry, because I don't want council to put ourselves in a position where we're not doing anything illegal. I very much don't want to do that. But we've actually got to this point where there's time constraints now and I believe that if he, like, how would the process, do we, I hate to say it, but would we fine ourselves? Do we internally do the investigation or does the minister step in and? Mayor Wilkie: Well, exemption. We're supposed to approve. Councillor Phillips: Oh, okay, exemption. Mayor Wilkie: Is that a better word? Isn't that pre-empting the outcome of the LNP? If the LNP process throws up a result that community don't want car parking, we've said, no, we're going for the car parking.

04:04:00 It's corrupting the process. It's like we've got an outcome in mind and we're going for it regardless of what the community says. Councillor Phillips: So the LNP wouldn't be, it wouldn't be finished, though, in time. That's what we got told. So that's why. Mayor Wilkie: I know, but you could write to the minister, the minister, the advising councillor working on the LNP, full stop. Councillor Phillips: And we're requesting approval for just this year because it'll come back like we talked about, that LNP gets put, and then we, yeah. Mayor Wilkie: But it might be, it might be, if it's finalised prior to Christmas and the outcome is no car parking, we've disrespected the, I'd just be very cautious about signalling anything in a motion that we're going to have parking, in the Lions Park at Christmas, regardless of what the... What's the difference to approving that last month, though? Regardless of what the LNP says. Councillor Phillips: I'm really confused because that's the decision we made last month, though.

04:05:00 Mayor Wilkie: Last month we decided to have the LNP process first to determine whether we could do it according to legislation. That was the decision made last month. The decision that got up and then was redacted. I could say. And to show you how 50-50 it is, at the previous General Committee meeting, the recommendation was that it proceed. No car parking, don't proceed. Changed by the ordinary. See, even this council's on a knife edge about this. Councillor Phillips: Yeah, but the LNP, we still can't make those decisions without the LNP, so that's why the LNP needs to happen, but you can't apply for an LNP unless you're telling them why. Yeah, that's right. So I have to say in the report... Mayor Wilkie: With the inclusion of temporary overflow car parking, but not approving car parking at Christmas before the LNP is finished. It's pre-empting the outcome of the LNP.

04:06:00 Like, everything else is fine. That's the correct process. But to request approval for car parking while we work on the LNP... It's pre-empting. Councillor Phillips: I don't understand how the last 20 years this has been done, though, and it's one year, and then the LNP gives us the framework to make those decisions, and then the community can see we've actually done the body of work that tells us yes or no, we know how much it's going to... Like, we're making... If we don't include that, we're pre-empting the other decision. Mayor Wilkie: OK, we're getting into the debate now, so you have the floor, Councillor. Councillor Phillips: Well, I'll start with saying I think the Minister can say no. So, I'm going to keep it. I do think it's courtesy that it used to be a process up until 2024 that the Minister was involved in this. So, I can't see that being an issue. I think it's really good due diligence to show the Minister

04:07:00 that we're working on our LNP. So, that part of it is... That I'm happy with. I will make... I made some notes as we've been going for a while, and some of the things that I wanted to point out that I landed with this was... The entire Lyons Park Reserve is approximately one hectare, not the grassed overflow area, the entire reserve. So, for some broader context, Noosa has about 35,000 hectares of land managed for environmental... And one hectare represents approximately 0.003% of that area. Again, seasonal overflow parking doesn't occupy the entire hectare. And so, we're asking whether a proportion of approximately one hectare of recreational land can appropriately accommodate vehicles for a limited period for exceptional peak demand.

04:08:00 Public transport has been extremely successful. And I would like to celebrate that, but it also hasn't been tested properly. We've heard that almost 75,000 passenger movements occurred on the one-way bus loop during Christmas. And that's an excellent result, and I really support that. We should continue investing in it. But we need to be disciplined about what evidence actually proves. So, it demonstrates that people will use convenient public transport. It doesn't automatically demonstrate that every person currently traveling on public transport will use convenient public transport. And I think it's important to be mindful of the fact that the decision about travel and transit for the bus is a practical alternative. And saying that those passenger movements that take to 51,000 vehicles removed from the road requires assumptions about vehicle occupancy and the substitution that should be transparent and tested before we base a long-term infrastructure decision upon them. More importantly, transport needs aren't uniform. So a family with a young child, an elderly resident, someone with mobility challenges, hospitality workers, people carrying equipment and residents travelling from our hinterland without frequent public transport don't have all the same options.

04:09:00 So good transport planning isn't about forcing everyone to use the same solution. My aspiration should be that our public transport becomes so convenient and effective that the demand for the Lions Park naturally disappears. If we reach that point, wonderful. But I don't believe good planning means removing an existing peak period tool before we demonstrate that the alternatives can adequately replace it. We shouldn't refuse to undertake the LNP because we've already decided that there must be parking. The LNP has been costed an estimate of $30,000 to $75,000 for undertaking that technical assessment. And on a monthly basis, we would approve flying minutes that are far greater in our budget. Let's test the seasonal parking against legislation.

04:10:00 Let's put the framework in place to give us a really clear decision making parameter. Let's ask our community, let's ask our stakeholders, especially around economic value to the car park. And then let's bring all the evidence back to the chamber. If the evidence demonstrates this, then we're going to have to make a decision. If the evidence suggests that seasonal overflow parking cannot satisfy the Statute 2 test, then I'm going to accept all that evidence. If our transport alternatives develop to the point where Lions Park is genuinely unnecessary, then I'm going to support that outcome. But I'm equally prepared to accept that if the evidence tells us that carefully controlled use of a handful peak period that can coexist with recreational purpose on this reserve and the broader public benefit, then that's what I'm going to keep an open mind about. I've listened to all of you. I think that it is extremely divided here and in our community, but we cannot preempt decisions. We can't use the DMP consultation to adequately say that this was exactly what they meant by it.

04:11:00 We've heard that it was an example. I think we owe it to the community to use every opportunity to regain trust. We shouldn't be thinking about what the end result will be and we shouldn't be doing the work that demonstrates a really good decision making for councillors. So I hope you can approve this today. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: I will support this. It doesn't give a predetermined outcome. It's giving us the option to be able to use Lions Park as overflow parking. We need the land management in place for that to be an option. After our meeting in July, NUSA Today did a poll on Facebook. Asking readers whether paid parking should continue during the Christmas holidays. It doesn't say how many respondents there were, but 83% voted yes and 17% voted no.

04:12:00 So while we might take one stat from the DMP, we have another one from another source that says completely the opposite. So I agree with Councillor Phillips, we need data here, and we need the land management plan to progress so that we can continue going forward. We need to have that option, and in the meantime we need to do our community consultation to find out whether we meet the public interest test and whether we'd be likely to progress that land management plan to fruition. So at the moment the data that was in the Go NUSA report was about compared congestion in Easter holidays with the weekend before Easter holidays. So we didn't even get good data on what happens when we close the Lions Car Park because we didn't actually measure it. Both with and without during the Easter holidays. We don't yet have a parking management plan, we're probably not going to have one for a while due to stuff and vacancies. So we shouldn't be making big decisions on parking without that parking management plan.

04:13:00 If we want to keep Lions Park as an option, then we need to progress the land management plan. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. I'm happy to support the amendment in front of us. C is a recommendation. The request only doesn't pre-empt any outcomes. So I think it's a commitment to our business and residents that we're looking at solutions rather than just shutting this down. So I totally support the amendment. And I do want to reiterate that after 20 years, when we talk about public interest tests and the two legal tests, the diminished purpose of the reserve, the park is still great after 20 years. So in terms of satisfying the two tests, I think 20 years of history, consultation, surveys, petitions and discussion,

04:14:00 I don't think we're going to have any issues in terms of satisfying those two legal tests. So happy to support what's in front of us. And I think it's just a really good step forward. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question, mainly through the governance lens and our statutory requirements. Does this in any way remove or reduce Council's trustee obligations under any other act or other sections of the Land Act, including but not limited to native title, human rights and other local and state permits and authorisations? I mean, I just don't want to... I support the intent of this, but I just want to be assured that under governance, that we are not on a fine line of violating the matters that I've just raised.

04:15:00 Speaker 14: My only, through the Chair, my only comment would be, and I'm just looking again at A, paragraph A and B, one refers about the further report around the costing and scope and I assume budget aspect of it. And the other one is approving, I would have thought maybe B is sort of embedded in A, because obviously the costing and scope relates to the commencement of the plan, whereas they would be read in conjunction that we commence the process. But at the same time, we're providing a further report. That would be my only comment. And just back to your, sorry, Karen, two responses there. The other one, my only comment would be in relation to C, and obviously to undertake the land management, we potentially are undertaking public consultation. So if we do write to the Minister, and let's say maybe he does support and we are going

04:16:00 out to consultation on the land management plan, whether that does give rise to preconceived outcome. And the other aspect, we would need to engage with Kabi as well, given we've got responsibilities over the native title, and we don't know what. That outcome would look like. So we need to work our way through that. But that's probably my only question. But I understand the intent of what council is seeking to achieve. Councillor Phillips: To clarify, my intent is exactly that when I meant approved commencement, I feel like that meant, because when I was working on, I was like, today, what's tomorrow? It wasn't like, so approve is not about approving the LNP. Yeah. It's about approving from today. So officers feel like, so you know exactly what we're asking from today. Commence that preparation. That ties in with what you would come back with the costs. All of that would come back to us, which we don't have today.

04:17:00 So we've got more evidence or like, there's more information then. But if you want me to move that word, but that's not the intent of that wording. Mayor Wilkie: So just clarifying. Speaker 14: Yeah, I was just wondering, so obviously the report, is it sort of endorsed the need to prepare a land management plan? Obviously that's what gives the city the intention to move there. But obviously it will be subject to a further report on the detailed scope and costing. Councillor Phillips: Help me know what to say then, because what I'm trying to, we, today, if we don't have any amendments, there's no LNP coming back to us. So how do I make sure that there's an LNP, which, it can't, it's not in the report. There's no recommendation. There's no recommendation, that's why. Mayor Wilkie: It's a report for noting. Councillor Phillips: It can't.

04:18:00 Why wait though, when the. Mayor Wilkie: I have a question. Does the part A, that report, will it also, in terms of proposed timeline, will it also, proposed timeline for consultation, will also talk about how, what other consultation projects that we have ratified will be affected and moved? Which ones we're likely to drop? Speaker 14: Yeah, we'll need to give a bit of thought, absolutely, to the planning and timing and sequencing of those things. We made commitments to Korea and other. Yeah, correct. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: My other question is. Yeah. I, I question whether we, we ought to be approving, no, I'll, I'll save it for, for debate, yeah, councillors, I understand the intent of this. Part A is great, that's, that's very wise, but I would caution against approving commencement on the land management plan.

04:19:00 That's, that's very wise, but I would caution against approving commencement on the land management plan. Before you know the full budget implications, what projects may be dropped, what consultation projects may be delayed further, before we, with eyes wide open and fully informed, then approve commencement of, or not of the land management plan. That needs to be an informed debate and decision. So I would caution against supporting this motion in its own way. Because we need to, I want to know what it's going to cost, what we're not going to do, instead, what consultation processes may be affected, what communities may be affected, while we fast track, if, if we decide to fast track this one.

04:20:00 And I still do have very big concerns about a letter, or even being on the public record saying, we're doing parking and the land management plan. Regardless of what the LNP throws up. Regardless of what the LNP throws up. I, I just think it, I would just caution against it. In my opinion, it pre-empts the outcome that we're seeking. In my opinion, it pre-empts the outcome that we're seeking. So, that's why I would caution against supporting this in its current form, or if, if it gets up, amending it later. So, that's why I would caution against supporting this in its current form, or if, if it gets up, amending it later. So, that's why I would caution against supporting this in its current form, or if, if it gets up, amending it later. So, that's why I would caution against supporting this in its current form, or if, if it gets up, amending it later.

04:21:00 Knowing what budget implications it will be, what consultation processes may be affected by us going down this path. As I say, the alternative is to move to where I've heard we're going to go eventually, because it's only temporary car parking, which is eventually that park will be likely to be returned to the community as a recreational reserve. Yes, it is only one hectare, but it is in a highly urbanised area where visitation is very high and where demand for green space is at its peak in holiday periods. And also, I'd like to put my view that we do have the mass transit alternative.

04:22:00 It's been it's beyond doubt that more people are getting down there than ever before by means other than the private car. They can still take the private car down and that the Lions Park contributes a minuscule amount to car parking or access access. People, more people are accessing that precinct than ever before. With or without the Lions Park, it's not needed. And the concourse was a demonstration of how many people can actually get down there. Just using the existing bus services with Hastings Street close to parking, Lions Park close to parking, Noosa Woods close to parking, existing bus services. And there were tens of thousands of people down there. So we do not need the Lions Park. The 065 one way loop box, as we've heard, has 75000 people over the Christmas period alone, a 67 percent increase on the previous Christmas.

04:23:00 People understand that if they catch a bus down there, they'll get there as fast as they can. But they won't be circulating for an hour, waiting for a park once they're there, they can have their coffee, have this one and be on their way out before people have a lot of people have even found the park. So to say there's no viable mass transit alternative is not, in my view, correct. We've got the data. We know that Lions Park car parking creates congestion. But again, back to this amendment. After rebutting some of the arguments, I'd be I'd be very cautious about approving certain elements of this particular motion. Councillor Wilson: Castle was a question to chair, please. Do we have any evidence that fewer vehicles are accessing the area? Do we have any traffic counters? Mayor Wilkie: I didn't say fuel. I said, I mean, more vehicles. Councillor Wilson: No, no. You said because people are taking buses, that's fewer vehicles, but we don't have any evidence about only that.

04:24:00 Mayor Wilkie: So you're saying that more people in general are accessing more people are accessing the precinct, but as it is actually to the CEO. Oh, sorry. Well, I can put it in context of my arguments. Speaker 12: No, I don't think I don't think we've got specific data on that council. That's my understanding. Mayor Wilkie: I would like to add. Councillor Wilson: No, you're debating them. I asked the question to the CEO. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. The Ghanousa report did say 51,000 fewer vehicles as a result of the 75,000 bus passengers. Councillor Wilson: That was as an estimate that a bus takes 2.1 people off the road, but we have no evidence of that. We just know that more people are left by bus, not that they left a car. Mayor Wilkie: Anyway, councillor, we're going to, I'll speak to it. Councillor Wegener: First of all, we all know we have a very, very tight budget. We have, like, four people staff maximum that we know that we are, we do not have the resources to do both. We are at a crossroads here with a fork in the road, and we can pay for and follow through with our transport strategy, or we can pay for a land management plan and we can focus on one or you can focus on the other, but we can't do both.

04:25:00 And. Our own staff and overall, we have committed ourselves to a transport strategy where we move people, not cars. So for me, it's pretty simple that the overflow overflow parking served a purpose. It did serve a purpose for a time, but that purpose is is outgrown itself. The population is growing. The congestion will continue to grow. And we have to respond to it and respond to it. It is our transport strategy. It is our bus loops. It is all those things that need all of our resources and more. I just can't believe that we're thinking of taking resources away from our transport strategy and putting them into an LMP and going down that because there's thousands of car parks available in the Shire and a 100 and so on in Lyons Park.

04:26:00 I, I would think that we should for the businesses for myself, for people that want to do that. We want to go there. We want to move people, not cars, and that's what our long term strategy has been for a very long time. We can't do both. Let's let's follow through with our with our plan with what staff recommends and let's do it. Mayor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak before Councillor Phillips closes? Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel. In regards to the question I raised before, it wasn't. I'm just wondering if governance is able to provide something. I don't have an insight into that because I feel I got a rehash of the. The amendment before us without really answering my question around. The impacts and how does it remove or reduce our obligations?

04:27:00 But through this amendment, I've got concerns around governance, our cooperative partnerships and minimising risk on really. I'm just not comfortable. I support the intent of this and I'm all for one forgiving voice of community. But in terms of governance and all that, the acts and regulations, I'm not. I'm not satisfied that I feel I've fully got the answers that I need to move forward with this amendment. I've got concerns. Mayor Wilkie: What specific question would you like answered councillor? Councillor Finzel: Well, I just want some feedback or an answer. If in support of this in its current how it's written and I do acknowledge you've given some feedback onto that and I thank the staff for that. Does this in what way remove or reduce council's trustee obligations under any other act or other sections of the Land Act, including but not limited to native title, human rights, other local and state permits and authorities?

04:28:00 Are we satisfied? Because, you know, when in the report and conversation we've heard words spoken, it's unlawful. We need to follow this process. It's clear. I've got here the policy for managing actions consistent and inconsistent with the purpose of trust land. Mayor Wilkie: We have the governance officer here for you councillor. Thank you. Speaker 9: Thank you. Through the chair, I can cover human rights and that question of does it reduce our obligations in the human rights space. No, the human rights piece of legislation in a nutshell is a complementary act that works alongside other pieces of legislation.

04:29:00 So if you were to consider creating a land management plan, you would consider and take consideration of human rights and you look at whether there are any limitations. Very quickly. Very quickly. Without, you know, having been through it or considered that element just off the on the surface. I can't think of a, you know, a right that would be impacted detrimentally by doing a land management plan. So as part of good governance, if you were to create a land management plan, you would consider those other elements such as human rights and other aspects, native title and other aspects of the legislation to make sure it's all consistent. That is also part of good risk management, too, to look at it that way. So if you were to do that, that that would be a logical step as part of that preparation process. Mayor Wilkie: Question. Will this if this is approved with this for the report telling the scope cost funding implication and timeline, will that include costs of the staff resources?

04:30:00 We've already committed to in terms of from the previous motion. Working with the lines and other stakeholders about future uses of the lines part of that. Speaker 14: Yeah. We'll we'll need. Yeah. We've sort of absorbed that today. Satellite parking with with within the team's operational resources, which are reduced at the moment with the fuel way. So, yeah, we would factor that in that further report to scope back to just councils and just in addition to Diana's comments. The only aspect. Yeah. I mentioned in relation to is is if in the event the minister is supportive of that would be would be my concerns around undertaking activity while we're going out to engagement on the very issue which we consulted on. So from a reputational risk, if we predetermined the outcome in lieu of that and obviously the native title engagement piece, I think we need to to engage properly with Kabi as part of that in good faith.

04:31:00 Yeah. Because they have non exclusive native title over the site. So we just need to be mindful of the risks and challenges in that regard before ending an outcome. But apart from that, I think everything else follows a very thorough and clear process. Mayor Wilkie: Question to the CEO. And if this motion doesn't get up today. There's. Possibly. There's potential for it to be reworded in a more concise format for the ordinary meeting. Absolutely. Yeah. So this isn't a do or die today, councillors. Absolutely. Councillor Phillips. You had your hand up. Councillor Phillips: No, that's fine. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Speaker 12: Can I just get some clarification?

04:32:00 The way it is now is receive a further report. So just in practical terms, all we do, we would provide a prepared report that scopes the costs of funding implications, other implications across our resourcing, across the organisation. This is just a little too. In the preparation, but then approve the commencement of the preparation. So we're not, I'm not going to start the preparation until we bring the report back. Speaker 10: Yeah. Speaker 12: We're all comfortable with that. That's what it means. Delete. Delete. Or does it need to have something else in there that says approval. Or subject to. Councillor Wilson: Yeah, subject to. Speaker 12: Subject of approval. Councillor Wilson: Subject of approval. Commence. Subject to approval commences the preparation. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 12: Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: I'm comfortable with that. It was, again, I'm not the wordsmith, but it's like, I was trying to put it in stages. Thank you.

04:33:00 Because it's another, like rather than waiting another month. Mayor Wilkie: Yep, it's understood. Okay, Councillor, before Councillor Phillips closes, any other councillors to speak? Councillor Phillips, you wish to close? Councillor Phillips: Between 2018 and 19 and early 2023, we had 42,291 vehicles using the Lions Park across 242 operating days,

04:34:00 and that generated $845,820 in gross revenue. Mayor Wilkie: I think this is new information, Councillor. Okay. This is for summing up and rebutting anything you may have heard. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Okay. I think that we are getting, really caught up on the cost when in our large-scale budget, this is just due diligence. Like I don't, I understand it hasn't been factored in, but we do this all the time. So it shouldn't matter how it comes to us. It's that this issue has arisen today and we've come up with ways to mitigate it. So I don't know if I agree with using the financial aspects of it to debate not doing it.

04:35:00 If the LNP evidence, we go through that process and the LNP is decided and we put that for the next 20 years for future councillors to use with their decision-making, then I think, wow, that's great legacy. We put really good frameworks in place that made us really, really good decisions. So, yeah, I hope that we, whatever the outcome of it is, we've actually shown and demonstrated that this council don't just jump to conclusions around what decisions we should be making. If the LNP evidence ultimately demonstrates that temporary parking at Lyons Park provides insufficient community benefit or causes unacceptable environmental damage or materially undermines our broader transport strategy then council can make that decision with confidence. But equally, if the evidence demonstrates that retaining several hundred temporary spaces

04:36:00 for a handful of extreme peak days materially improves traffic movement, accessibility or safety while we continue to build our public transport alternatives, then we should be prepared to consider that too. Because for me, it's not about choosing cars over places. It's not about choosing a green space. It's just about really good governance. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Phillips. We'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Councillor Phillips. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Lorentson. Against? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wilkie. The amendment's carried. I have another amendment. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. Amendment six. Request that council request that the CEO write to the minister. Seeking confirmation. Councillor Finzel: Are you amending item C?

04:37:00 Councillor Lorentson: Where are we up to in terms of ABC? That council might report. Councillor Finzel: So are you amending item C, which is write to the minister, advising that council are working on the LNP? Or are you doing another one? Councillor Lorentson: I'm doing another one. Speaker 11: So write to the minister and then write to the minister. Two write to the minister. Speaker 12: So it's two separate letters. Right to the minister. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: So request that the CEO write to the minister seeking confirmation of whether the minister would consider an application by council as trustee. Director Walsh: You might have to slow down a bit. Sorry. Councillor Lorentson: So the CEO write to the minister seeking confirmation of whether the minister would consider an application by council as trustee. An application by council, comma, as trustee, comma, under section 52 AA of the Land Act

04:38:00 1994 in relation to the use of Noosa Heads Lines Park and whether ... Noosa Heads Lines Park. A land management plan is or isn't required.

04:39:00 Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Phillips, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: This is just a follow-up of the amendment seeking legal advice. And we heard around the table that staff were happy to write directly to the minister. The Land Act sets out two legal pathways for an inconsistent action. And I just think that we owe it to the community to look at both before committing to either. Section 52AA applies the same test as Section 52AB. And that is that, one, the action won't diminish the purpose of a trust land. And two, it won't adversely affect the public interest. But if my reading of Section 52AA is correct,

04:40:00 we could go through Section 52AA just through a single ministerial decision rather than a full management plan process. So the amendment pretty much just asks for clarification. A. Can we go under the pathway Section 52AA? And two, whether LNP is actually required. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. As Chair, I just need to check something. Can we have an amendment that was very similar to this previously? It's been a long day. It was for legal advice. I have a question about writing to the minister about Section 52AA. Could you just read out one that may be similar? Councillor Lorentson: No, I didn't move that one, Kabi. Okay.

04:41:00 This one, maybe? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, well, this is so that Amendment 4 was that council had obtained written legal advice on whether Section 52AA was required. The Land Act applies to this trustee action. If it does not, a specific statutory basis for that conclusion is the outcome reported back to council. It's very similar, but you've asked that we write to the minister again about getting approval under Section 52AA. It's very close, but I'll allow it for debate. I'll speak to it. But we've had councils... We've had exhaust... Very clear, exhaustive advice about this already. We're already going to be writing to the minister about the LNP process and whether approval

04:42:00 can be given because the LNP process is underway. This is redundant. We've already had this advice. I'm also conscious of the fact that we're at item 3 in a 12-item agenda, and I just ask that we dispense with amendments that are pretty close to being duplicates to what we've just debated previously. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question through the chair? Yes. I'm confused in terms of duplicates. There was no request to write to the CEO and seeking legal advice of two very different things. One because... Is this a question? Yeah. So I'm just trying to understand. Question? How it's a duplicate when it's making a different request. Mayor Wilkie: We've had advice from staff and via the staff from the department about what section

04:43:00 is relevant here. We've been told that section 52AA does not apply to us, to council as a statutory body, and we've already got a motion, an amendment to a motion about writing to the minister. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Yeah. Questions? I have a question just to staff. And again, I am going to repeat this question because I might have misunderstood. Have we specifically asked the question about section 52AA to the minister? Speaker 14: No, there hasn't been any reference to the specific section of the Act. It's just been in relation to us as trustee and undertaking activity on the reserve. So it's been more specific around the land and the site, which the department has been well aware of, and they've provided advice back to us, which you've all got a copy of. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you very much. Any councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close?

04:44:00 Just keep it really simple. A full land management plan process runs six to 12 months, carries real costs to, you know, real costs to ratepayers. If we explore section 52AA and find out that an ALC MP is not actually required to write a letter, that to me is, you know, worth exploring by simply sending, writing a letter and pressing the send button. I think again, in terms of due diligence and exploring every possible option, I think this is a really good step. I'll put the amendment. Mayor Wilkie: Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilkie. The amendment's lost. We have a substantive motion before us. Are there any further amendments anyone wishes to try to this substantive motion? All right. To the original motion, we go back and only Councillor Wegener has spoken.

04:45:00 Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion as it stands, which was amendment number five. It's amendment number five with the item about noting the report. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion as it stands, which was amendment number Before Councillor Wigginton closes, I'll just say councillors, this has been an exhaustive process today. Good debate. Councillor Wigginton, do you wish to close? Councillor Wegener: Well, a lot's been going over. Again, I'd like to reiterate that I would like to see this council maintain going down the track, the plan that we have set over the last many, many years, which is our transport strategy. I think this is a fork in the road. One road goes to Cairns, one goes to Sydney. We're a new set.

04:46:00 And if we go down the LMP track with our... Our funding and our focus, it will go into Cairns. We're not going to all of a sudden find ourselves in Sydney. We're going to find ourselves in Cairns. And so I would prefer that we follow our staff recommendations and our well-established transport strategy of moving people, not cars. Mayor Wilkie: I'm going to attempt an amendment. And then it would be part B. Councillor Lorentson: I don't think part B would be amended. Mayor Wilkie: Consider budget implications before approving commencement of the preparation of the land management plan. Councillor Finzel: Pardon?

04:47:00 Mayor Wilkie: Well, in answer to your question, what... By agreeing to this, we're approving commencement of the preparation of the land plan immediately before you've considered the budget implications or the implications for the consultation program of this council and the resource implications. So that's why I'm changing it to say, let's get that report with all the budget implications, how it's going to affect the consultation schedule and the operations of this council before we... Before we commence a land plan or not. So... Councillor Lorentson: Excuse me, Chair. I didn't get the right name. Consider commencement? Mayor Wilkie: Consider... Consider... It's a new bit. The findings of the report.

04:48:00 Of the report on resourcing. Before considering commencement... And the preparation of a land management plan for Noosaheads Lions Park. We have a seconder for the purpose of debate. I'll second it. Councillor Wegener, you... Councillor Wilson: Didn't you... Mayor Wilkie: Oh, wait a minute. Motion... Councillor Wilson: Didn't you... Mayor Wilkie: I can't. I can't second it. You can't. You've moved the original motion. Yeah. Oh. I'll second it. Speaker 2: I'll second it. Councillor Lorentson: Can I second that? Mayor Wilkie: Karen. No, Karen, you can't. I can't. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, sorry. Mayor Wilkie: No. Okay. The amendment elapses for one of a second now. Councillor Phillips: Can I ask a question? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Phillips: Just to staff. Do you feel comfortable with what to do moving out of today?

04:49:00 Because it is quite... Yeah. It's been long. So I just... Because that, to me, captured what we already went through. So I just want to be really clear. Speaker 14: Yeah. Through the Chair, my only comment would be is maybe would be there is an amendment because it's essentially subject to Council endorsement of A, that we then commence the process, if that makes any sense. So I think, as the Mayor's pointed out, it says take a report, but it's also B, which has to be written in isolation as commence the process, which is essentially the sequence and should be subject to Council endorsement of A, or the outcomes of A, Council commits to, and then we'll undertake that process for that. Councillor Phillips: So won't they just come through the workshop that we have when we have it? Like, it'll give you... Surely we're not... Cathy, would you mind just bringing back up the... Speaker 16: Through the Chair, you've called for a further report, so there's a further report to be

04:50:00 considered. There's a resolution around that. But, you know, the resolution against that... Speaker 12: We've actually got a resolution here to approve the commencement. So we've got to say subject to... Councillor Lorentson: So subject to... So through the Chair, we've got ordinary meetings, so we can play... It's been a long day in terms of wording, so... Councillor Phillips: It's the word approve that's thrown everyone off, because it was meant to be that it's like three-step process. Subject to... Mayor Wilkie: That's what this is trying to achieve, Jess. Speaker 12: Can you bring up the whole... Director Walsh: Yeah, so we're finished with this amendment. Councillor Lorentson: Jess, do you want me to move subject to A? What would you like me to do? Hang on. Yeah. Can I move... Just wording around here. Can I move an amendment? Subject... Okay, so receive it. This is what we have approved? This is a substandard amendment. Yeah. So just using your wording, amendment subject to approval of A.

04:51:00 Speaker 12: Am I writing a new amendment? Councillor Lorentson: Council... No. Mayor Wilkie: At the start of B. Councillor Lorentson: Subject to... No, but there's someone moving an amendment. Mayor Wilkie: I'm moving an amendment. Okay, so Jess, you didn't want to support that amendment? Councillor Phillips: No, because it's just a simple wording. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: All right, so that amendment was lost. We've got another amendment being proposed. Councillor Phillips: Yeah. Which is? Mayor Wilkie: Subject to... Where? Councillor Lorentson: Item B. Councillor Phillips: So B. Councillor Lorentson: B. So... Councillor Phillips: That item B be amended as... Councillor Lorentson: Item B be amended to read subject to approval of A. Speaker 3: That's all that means? Councillor Phillips: That's it. Councillor Lorentson: Can I have a look at... It's just a report. It's just a report. Speaker 14: My suggestion, if we... Can we... If we have some time... Can we... If we have some time before ordinary, we're happy to provide some advice to the councillor who put the motion around. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Just move. Speaker 14: Yeah.

04:52:00 Just to refine it, I think it's been a lot of discussion. I agree. We've got to spend a lot of time on the floor. So that would be my suggestion. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy with that. Put it on hold. Yeah. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Speaker 11: Can we put the substandard motion before us, please? Mayor Wilkie: Right. Next item. No, we haven't voted. We haven't voted. Councillor Finzel: Okay. We haven't voted. I'm just asking for the substandard motion to be put before us, please. Mayor Wilkie: I'll just put the substandard motion up. Speaker 12: Yep. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. So is there any further discussion on this? No. Any further amendments? Councillor Lorentson: It's closed. You can't... Mayor Wilkie: Okay. All right. We'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Phillips. Councillor Finzel.

04:53:00 Councillor Wilson. Councillor Lorentson. And against? Councillor Wegener and Councillor Wilkie. The item's carried. That is item three done with. We're up to item four on the 12-item agenda. Thank you, Dennis. Thanks, Dennis. Thank you all. Richard. Speaker 13: Richard. Speaker 14: Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Donald Starr for Endurance. Thank you. Planning applications decided by delegated authority. Welcome. Good afternoon, Councillor. Who is this gentleman? Speaker 1: Ben. Ben. Ben. Speaker 14: Ben. Hello, Ben. Welcome. Ben. A coordinator of planning. Patrick is. Ben McAuliffe. Patrick's on leave. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Welcome, Ben. Sorry. Thank you. Could you summarise the report for us? Speaker 1: Oh, yes. Thank you. So, obviously, this is the report for the decisions issued under delegated authority for noting in the month of June, officers issued 44 decisions with zero applications determined by Council. Any questions for Ben, Councillors? Mayor Wilkie: Does someone care to move the report?

7.1.4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – JUNE 2026 ¶

▶ 04:53:15· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

04:54:00 Councillor Lorentson. Happy Tuesday. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Finzel, any discussion? No. Councillor Finzel: No. It was me, Councillor. Mayor Wilkie: Lawrence. Councillor Finzel: Nicola. Mayor Wilkie: Oh. I second. I second. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Councillor Wilson has seconded it. Go. Councillor Lorentson has moved it. Any discussion? Councillor Lorentson: No. I think it's been just a very long day. Went through the report. Lots of approval, which I really think it's good. Appreciate the simplicity and clarity of the report also. So, thank you for presenting the report, Ben. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: Thank you, Ben. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Ben. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, and the purpose of, I know it may seem a perfunctory thing, the way we've handled this, Ben, but one of the reasons why we asked that this be brought to us was to let the community know that there are high-level approvals. Of course. Our Noosa Council is a very effective machine in terms of development approvals. About 96 per cent is averages, and a lot of this work is done under delegated authority

04:55:00 by your team. So, we appreciate it. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Ben. Thanks for the break. Thanks, Ben. Next is the operational plan, quarterly reporting, delivered by Executive Officer, Yancey Wolfe. Good afternoon, councillors. Speaker 12: Good afternoon. Hello, Yancey. Speaker 10: I'll make this very quick for you. Speaker 12: She's on leave as of tonight. Speaker 10: Yes. This report provides the quarter four operational plan progress update. Quarter four provides a strong finish to operational plan delivery, with 82 per cent of initiatives either on track or completed. It has been indeed a very busy quarter. Some of the highlights were the adoption of the Child Safeguarding Policy, adoption of the Cemeteries Legacy Plot Management Policy, also the award of $330,000 in community

7.1.5 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2025-2026 Q4 QUARTERLY REPORTING ¶

▶ 04:55:18· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

04:56:00 environment grants, adoption of the Botanic Gardens Master Plan, which is fantastic, also the development of the draft biosecurity plan, which then went to... Community Engagement. I think this may have concluded already. Then we have the adoption of the Tourism, Noosa Funding and Performance Deed as well, and the award of commercial high-use permits. This is not an exhaustive list, so the report provides a further list of achievements of the quarter, so it was a very, very busy quarter. There are two major disruptions. You are familiar with these items from previous reports. Namely, they are the Berean Point Campground Master Plan and the Regional Art Gallery Feasibility Project, stage four. Regarding attachment to the key performance measures, most notably, there have been significant improvements to on-time processing of plumbing application, and some of the Q3 resource constraints

04:57:00 have been resolved, which is good. So overall, this report provides a very positive outlook on operational work. Mayor Wilkie: Good questions for Yonci. Speaker 10: Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: I do just quickly around the policy for the child safety one. So that's been adopted and I know we're not quite in a quarterly reporting, but just getting a timeframe around, I understand that that'll need like SOPs within each of the council buildings that will sort of change or put strict measures around how the operating of the buildings go. So just wondering, that won't get reported back up to us. So this is the only time I get to ask about a timeframe that that policy will actually see change. Speaker 10: Yeah. For the chair, I have to take that on notice. That's okay. Unless Paul Brickman, Acting Community Services Manager, Director. Oh, sorry. That's okay.

04:58:00 Speaker 11: Oh, sorry. That's okay. Of course. Yeah. My apologies. Councillors, in terms of the time, I mean, we've only just presented to the leadership team. So our manager, PNC, or within corporate services, has taken on this project. And so we've just done the education and awareness with the leadership team around the implications and what we need to develop internally and what those controls are and the mandatory reporting requirements around all of that framework. So it literally was only presented to them last week. So in terms of then councillors getting a regular update as to the implementation of that policy and associated guidelines, I'll have a discussion with the CEO around what's the most appropriate method in which we report back to you on the implementation of that. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Morrison. Councillor Lorentson: So going through all the 98 initiatives, and I think I raise this question every time we get these reports, in terms of what it says is done complete.

04:59:00 I don't like the word complete. So that means tick, a task has been done. My question goes to, how do we find out if it actually works? Do we follow up with like customer satisfaction? Do it, you know, and I'll mention library of things. I know how great that is. So how do we sort of follow up whether or not we've achieved the outcome intended with the task? Speaker 10: Usually when the items, initiatives are marked complete, then okay. Obviously, as stated, as for the initiatives or the initiative has been achieved, in terms of if there was any further request for information in the follow up, that would probably require then a request for information to the team, I imagine. Mayor Wilkie: Like a toilet facility is, the changing places facility, I think the terrace will be complete

05:00:00 when it's complete. That's right. Speaker 12: That's right. Yeah. Yeah. It comes as complete in terms of. The outcomes of that, that's a separate exercise, and that's something we are looking at doing with our reporting, but that's not coming there yet in terms of the outcomes, but that's also, that comes in some of the status reporting that we can provide sort of like the library of things that could be a status report and say, well, if it's complete in terms of it's implemented, because that's what the report is asking, what the report's saying, in terms of what it's diluted, how it's going, is a separate exercise. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, it'd be great to have that tracked somehow, just again, just some thought, again, just community surveys or simple as has it achieved, the outcome sought. Two major disruptions I think were noted, the regional art gallery and the Boring Point campground

05:01:00 projects. Can you give us some more information about that? Speaker 10: The Boring Point campground master plan is on hold due to identified challenges and development constraints under the current scope and scale. So there are some land constraints. When the teams are, obviously it's commercial and the planning team, obviously, to see what they, how they can pretty much proceed. But if there are land constraints, most likely it's commercial. Speaker 1: I think they relate to a bushfire risk of surrounding areas. Speaker 10: In terms of the regional art gallery feasibility project stage four, the business case has been put on hold due to competing organizational priorities, resourcing pressures, and also ongoing uncertainties arising from global economic conditions affected both the national and local economy. So there's consistent with that. There's currently no budget. Budget item in the annual budget to progress that stage four at this stage.

05:02:00 That's where the status of that item is at the moment. Councillor Lorentson: So given there's been some considerable significant amount of some money spent on that project in terms of consultation, is there a report coming to council? There is. Speaker 12: We'll be bringing a report back to council in the near future on that in terms of so we can get some direction on going forward. Okay. Excellent. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: I'm happy to move it. Councillor Lorentson: Happy to second. Happy to second. Council Wegener. So it's Wilkie and Wegener? Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Wilkie and Wegener. This operational plan has been our roadmap for continuing to ensure Noosa remains a great place to live, work, and visit while preparing for the future. The plan is built around five priorities. Protecting our environment. Improving the stability. Strengthening prosperity. Preparing for the future and aspiring to excellence in customer service.

05:03:00 These priorities have guided decisions, investments, and services over the year, ensuring we continue to meet the needs of our community while safeguarding the things we all love about living here. It's been mentioned that there's 81% of the initiatives were either completed or on track at the end of the financial year, showing the organizations working hard, but despite staffing challenges faced by the local government sector. Council is delivering. We've talked about the areas for improvement, being the regional art gallery, the Boring Point Camp Ground Master Plan, resource and workforce capacity constraints, and referral agency response team responses. But over the past year, there's been strong progress in advancing environmental initiatives that protect our waterways, biodiversity, and natural landscapes. We've invested 56 million in community infrastructure. Continued to work on affordable housing, which we heard before in the housing report.

05:04:00 And supported programs that strengthen health, well-being, and community connection. We've continued to back local business, innovation, and sustainable economic opportunities, while advancing waste reduction and circular economy initiatives. At the same time, we have strengthened disaster preparedness, climate resilience, and our partnership with Kabi. This year, Council has continued a strong focus on delivering infrastructure that helps keep our community connected. Key projects include the Lake Dunalla Bridge upgrade, expansion of the Cooroy Gymnastics Facility, an accessible changing places facility at Quota Park and Ympie Terrace, and important upgrades to the Noosa Aquatic Centre. There have been parkland improvements across the Shire, renewed playgrounds, parks, and public amenities, and continued planning for the future of the Noosa Leisure Centre and community facilities. Through our 56 million capital works program, we have also delivered bridge renewals, road upgrades, foreshore improvements, recreational infrastructure that enhance safety, accessibility, and quality of life for residents and visitors alike. But the work is far from finished, and it never ends.

05:05:00 The progress we note today is only a foundation for what comes next. Continuing to plan for the future, protect our environment, support our people, and build an ever more resilient, thriving community. I note the findings of the operational report, as well as the capital works program, and the audited financials make up a substantial amount of the annual report. It's coming later this year. It's a huge body of work. I commend our councillors, the CEO, the executive team, managers, and board of staff of the organisation for delivering the operational plan for 2025-2026. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: A question through the Chair. The Peregian Beach Active Streetscape, it's not mentioned here, and the Mayor mentioned pathways. There were significant funds, and at the time, time was limited. There were significant funds in terms of our grant funding. When are we to expect an update to progress report we were up to with the funding allocation,

05:06:00 and whether the state has actually allowed us to repurpose the funding? Yep. Speaker 12: I've got, I'll refer to the Director of Infrastructure. Mayor Wilkie: Shaun Walsh, Director of Infrastructure. Welcome to the meeting. Director Walsh: Good afternoon, councillors. I'm Elizabeth Walsh, and my apologies for not being in attendance. So, the initial discussions with the SEQ Livability Fund and the Australian Transport Fund have been positive to pivot the program to more practical works, such as footpaths versus the more active street. They've encouraged us to make the formal applications, which we've done. We're expecting to hear back from them for any moment, and then we'll report further to council. They've also been receptive of extensions to the project timeframes. Mayor Wilkie: We're very positive. Great news. Thank you. Thank you. Councillors, would you speak to the operational report? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Just once again to say thank you to Shaun Walsh and the teams because if there's ever any naysayers about what Council does,

05:07:00 just look at the report. It's so impressive. It's so incredible, all the things that you guys are doing through the operational plan. So thank you. Speaker 10: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I'll waive my right to close. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Yossi. Enjoy your holiday. Reports for action. Terms of reference for the news. Councillors, are you fine to continue or would you like a five-minute break? Five-minute break. Five-minute break? Great. Okay. We'll come back in.

7.2 REPORTS FOR ACTION ¶

▶ 05:07:30

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

7.2.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR) - NOOSA WATERS RESIDENT ADVISORY GROUP ¶

▶ 05:08:18· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

05:18:00 Thank you. Director Walsh: Noosa Council at that time formed a partnership agreement with representatives of Noosa Waters to dictate to overview Council's expenditure of the special rates for both the canal maintenance as well as the lock and wear system, as well as matters of mutual agreement concerning streetscapes and water quality and the like. Frankly, after 26 years to review the terms of the partnership agreement and jointly with finance, we've been reviewing the terms of reference.

05:19:00 So it's actually a more formal arrangement between the Association and council offices with a very clear agenda, which addresses matters pertaining to the special levies, as well as other matters of mutual interest, as well as very transparent information exchange, including expenditure on the special needs, Thank you very much. Thank you for having me as well about these matters. So I'm happy to take any questions. Mayor Wilkie: Shaun, are they happy with the outcome?

05:20:00 Director Walsh: Yes, they're very happy with the outcome. It's fair to say that unpacking 20 years of information and to get a clear direction moving forward has required Zach and I to work really hard with the association and to get clarity that things aren't assumed, they're actually established and set. We've still got a bit of work to do in terms of the financial modelling associated with long-term maintenance of both the canals as well as the lock and weir. But we're on a really good path to actually present that updated financial modelling information to determine new levy rates moving forward. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Recently, and I think it was about a year ago, Shaun, there was like an outbreak and I think it was an algae bloom in the canal system. Just wanted to know whether through this group, there's just been any progress in addressing that issue or mitigating that from happening.

05:21:00 I know at the time I was, when I was talking to some of the residents, there was mention about pumping at high tide. Has that, is that part of the considerations of this group and partnership? Director Walsh: Yeah, good question, Councillor Lorentson, and then you're correct, there was a minor algae bloom, which was a nuisance algae, rather than a toxic algae within the canal system, and it was about this time or maybe one month later last year, we undertook manual removal. Since that date, we've been working on a more detailed algae management plan for the canal estate and monitoring it a lot more closely. One of the things we're keen to do this season is actually to put the pump on 24-7, rather than just pumping on 24-7. We understand that that attempt, that approach has been used historically after we've gone through our records and looking forward to deploying that this season to see what effect it has on the nuisance algae.

05:22:00 The other thing, Mike, is that the association is keen for us in the future to explore a variable timing on the pump inlet, which is on Chaplain Park in the Noosi River, to actually explore variable pumping on the high tide to improve, in their perception, water quality through the canal system. That would need to come at significant expense, and that is not from their levy, that would need to be funded by general rates revenue, and we can explore that when the current salinity pump is towards the end of its useful life and see whether that's an add-on that we can afford, so we'll continue to monitor that. I think what we'll know is that we undertake water quality monitoring at two locations within the Noosa Waters estate, and we do meet accepted guidelines. Speaker 15: Councillor Thorpes. Councillor Phillips: Thanks, Shaun. So we are just wondering if, out of this, would it come back to us any low-cost, high-impact steps that we could do to improve the water quality in that area?

05:23:00 Director Walsh: We've set up a relationship with the Noosa Waters Reservations Association, so they're stakeholders on the Noosa River Catchment Action Plan, and we think that's the appropriate vehicle to actually capture their actions to moving forward, and that would also then hopefully provide a funding mechanism. So we are conscious of the fact that there are very specific things which are funded by the special levy, and then there are other things which are funded by general rates revenue, and the same water quality parameters that apply at Noosa Waters Canal System applies in any creek or Cranks Creek or any other creek around the Shire, and we need to make sure that we're not favouriting or, you know, expending funds for one group that perhaps could be, from a priority perspective, funded elsewhere. Councillor Phillips: One more question, Shaun, just around the stormwater and hydrology assumptions.

05:24:00 So given that, I think the catchment's about 30 years old, do we still use the original assumptions, or have we undertaken any assessment that's more updated? Director Walsh: That's a very good question, Councillor. So the original assumptions are the same. The original environmental impact assessment for the site was undertaken in 1983, and this is well before we had the any creek arterial, the business centre, or most of the Noosaville Industrial Estate, and about 40% of the catchment of the Noosa Waters Canal System comes from outside the actual Noosa Waters Estate. The catchment parameters and the environmental impact assessment have never been updated, so since 1983, so that's a fair statement. And that's why there is the importance of water quality. And that's why there is the importance of water quality monitoring to actually determine that we're appropriate with accepted guidelines. It will continue to be monitored, and we'll need to adjust as appropriate, but we have to relate that other creeks within the Noosa catchment have much worse water quality than the Noosa Waters Canal System, relatively.

05:25:00 Thanks. Mayor Wilkie: Any further questions? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of costs, are there any significant costs that Council should cover? I don't think there are any significant costs that Council should be preparing for over the next few years. When I go through the report, there's some serious issues. Just wanted to know whether we've sort of considered or understood what those costs are going to look like. And I'm referencing the future noise barrier replacement, revetment walls, as Councillor Phillips mentioned, stormwater entering the system. And I'm referencing the future noise barrier replacement, revetment walls, as Councillor Phillips mentioned, stormwater entering the system. Director Walsh: So firstly, the revetment walls are in good condition and are the result of significant work undertaken in the mid-2010s

05:26:00 to actually restore the rock armourings supporting the concrete upstand walls. The large part of the concrete upstand walls are actually containment in private property, and not Council's expense and Private Property's expense, apart from whether or on park places. And that is in really good condition. We have a renewal budget that we apply. We will be doing some rock armouring in the near future to ensure that rock is in a good condition. In regard to the lock and wear, we undertook a full replacement about three years ago. We've had significant improvement in faults and reduction in residents' complaints associated with use of the lock and wear, so that's very encouraging. There are some minor things associated with the electrical control panel that we should be able to accommodate within the levy expenditure. The other items which are outside the levy expenditure are of note. I wouldn't say serious, but they need to be accommodated within our asset management planning. The first one is the pipework facility pump system, which comes from Chapman Park, runs alongside the canal and discharges into the top end of the canal near Mermaid Quay.

05:27:00 The pipework does need realigning. It was never constructed with inspection pits at the pipe joins, and that will be an exercise of perhaps several hundred thousand dollars that we need. We have a significant budget for it in coming years to actually realign the pipe. The pipe realigning is actually quite a commonplace technology. We use it in our stormwater pipes all the time, but it will be the insertion of the inspection pits, which will be fairly complex. So we actually designed the year this year to actually scope that pipeline pipe realigning project, so we can actually model in our future asset management plans. As a result of this process, we also have undertaken a review of the acoustic barriers. Acoustic barriers were installed for noise attenuation associated with the environmental impact assessment for the Inquireg arterial, and they do have particular acoustic objectives that they're designed to meet. The walls do need miter patching at the moment, and we also need to manage the vegetation adjacent to the acoustic walls better at the moment to ensure longevity.

05:28:00 We can anticipate that within five to 10 years, we probably will need to do major works on the acoustic barriers. And again, we're starting to scope that in terms of future capital works. Renewal at that time, we'll have to also undertake fresh acoustic assessment to determine that we're actually meeting contemporary requirements. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of terms of reference, what we've got in front of us today only covers Noosa Waters. Are there other canal estates or residents group in within the Shire with similar special levies who might now ask for terms of reference? Director Walsh: The other areas that. We have special levies applied for Noosa Junction and also Hastings Street Association. Sat from finance manager, acutely aware that we also need to review the Noosa Junction terms of reference to ensure that those parameters are appropriate and most significantly the Hastings Street levies.

05:29:00 So we sort of saw this as a first run to get our training wheels on because it is complex to actually start approaching the Hastings Street Association this financial year. I'd be happy to let Zach talk more to that, as I understand he's in the room. Thanks, Zach. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you, councils. Just to build on what Sean had provided. So we've been undertaking this in the Hastings Street Association kind of at the same time, but using Noosa Waters as the basis for that. So we have been working closely with the Hastings Street Association over the course of the last year. A very similar structure has been proposed in terms of the financial reporting, transparency, information set, et cetera, et cetera. It is just on a slightly, I wouldn't say delayed, but it is following this in close succession where we will have a similar terms of reference structure that is set up. Just because of the nature of the groups in terms of the ownership or the structure of them, they will look slightly different. But the intention is to have a structure that is mimicked across all special levies to provide transparency to also then support our revenue.

05:30:00 Which ultimately details the extent of these levies and the 10-year asset management plans that support them. Excellent. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. Really great and necessary addition. Council Fools. Councillor Phillips: Question. It might be somewhere in the report. Sorry, Shaun or Zach. Just wondering how, like outcomes I've been noticing, like the minutes and everything, it looks very structured now. So how will it come to us? How will it come to us? How will it come to us with assets or is that where I'll be looking for recommendations from that, from the meetings three times a year? It will get fed up through budget. I'm just trying to work out like if they ask for, I can't think of something because of my brain right now. But let's say something comes out of that group. How will I know? Because that's an internal thing now, isn't it?

05:31:00 Speaker 3: Yes. So there's the, happy to take that question in through the chair. So there's the terms of reference and the formal reporting structure we do with the Association of South, which is done on a quarterly basis. But we councillors will ultimately see the outcome of that from a financial perspective as every year in the lead up to the budget. We talk about not only the rating structure, but also the special levies. And as part of that, we have referenced the idea around a rating strategy this year. So one of the things we are working through in the current financial year is looking at that 10-year asset management plan that ultimately underpins that. And that's where the visibility of that programme will be provided to councillors. Noting that both of these levies, they are insular. They're the only people that fund works or are part of the association themselves. So there's no real, historically, there's been no real broad impact to general rates. But the intent is through the budget, you will get visibility of the work we undertake this year. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Someone care to move the recommendation? Councillor Lorentson: Further questions. Further questions? Yeah. Just in terms of history, and I can only imagine what you went through, Shaun, two questions.

05:32:00 When Noosa Waters was developed in the 90s, and I lived in Noosa Waters for 10 years on the table, was there ever an agreement setting out who would pay for the canal and lock maintenance long term? Or what I've sort of read in the report, this is sort of all being worked out informally. But was there actually, you know, a document setting out what our obligations were? Director Walsh: Yes, councillor, there is. So as part of your annual budget documents, there is a levy category. Yes. And the actual requirements to actually pay the levy and the way it's expended is actually included in the levy statements. So perhaps our biggest area of exploration was just clarifying transparency of financial reporting around our expenditure on the levy items,

05:33:00 which the Noosa Waters Revenue Association were really keen to receive. And then also a clarity around the non-levy items or the items funded by general revenue and how we got them better accommodated into an asset management plan for the longer term. Because they were also concerned for things like the facility pump pipework as well as the acoustic barriers. So in that agenda allows them to raise those items. I was just reflecting upon Councillor Phillips previous question as well. It seems to be good practice that we certainly we could post a copy of the minutes to, you know, the relevant council intranet page. So you've got a copy of them. And we certainly have not prevented any of the representatives to making representations to their elected councillors as well. That's part of normal process for any resident to do that. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, we have a motion. Does someone care to move it? Councillor Lorentson second? Councillor Phillips? Councillor Lorentson?

05:34:00 Councillor Lorentson: No, I think it's just really quite thorough. I really enjoyed reading the terms of reference. I think it's just really important in terms of future planning, clarity, and just being very clear obligations. We just, this is just good governance. So thank you for the report in front of us and happy to support. Collaboration part I think is probably the most important. I have spoken to people in the Noosa Water Residents Association, and it seems like it's been a really productive, positive collaboration. So thank you. And I'd like to acknowledge that. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Any other councillors? Councillor Phillips: I'll just follow that up with similar feedback that I got. And I know it started, Shaun, like there's been a lot of work that's gone into it. And also, like I think we talk about volunteers all the time. And then we forget these are sort of volunteers as well, aren't they? Like they're not the advisory group aren't being paid to tell us what's happening on the ground.

05:35:00 So I think I want to acknowledge that just that they are trying to work collaboratively. But Zach and Shaun, the feedback that I got from both you both specifically was, was really like really good, strong working relationship. And I just want to thank you both for, yeah, just trying to maintain that. Or it's probably meant to some degree, some of the relationships that we have with community and using that opportunity, which is a perfect platform to re-engage and actually take people on our journey with us. So, well done. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Put it to the vote. Those in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you, Zach. Thank you, Shaun. Thank you, Zach. Next item is the update to the infrastructure charges resolution written by Odd-Born Ludvigson.

7.2.2 UPDATE TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES RESOLUTION ¶

▶ 05:35:57· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

05:36:00 And in his place, we have... Speaker 12: No, Lut's here online. Mayor Wilkie: Lut's online. Lut's online. Lut is online. Welcome, Lut. Yeah. Could you give us... Good afternoon, councillors. Good to know you're still around. Yeah, still around. Yeah. Could you tell us what this report is all about, please? Speaker 4: Okay. Basically, it's just updating our current charges resolution to actually align with the latest update to the planning regulation for the scheduled charges that council can apply. It just brings it up to the 2025-26... From the 2025-26 financial year to the current year, 2026-27. We do this every year. And it's just a simple increase. It's two different charges resolution. This year, it's an increase of 3.7% from last year's charge rates.

05:37:00 Mayor Wilkie: Yep. Speaker 4: Questions for Lut? Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Phillips? Councillor Phillips: Sometimes, I'm just wanting to know who sets... And apologies for... Again, there's a lot of information in here, but is this a legislative requirement to set it, or do we set the fees? Just so I can be clear on that. Speaker 4: Sure. Yeah. The planning regulation sets the maximum charges in its schedule 16, which prescribes the maximum amounts that council can charge. Council can then... If it wants to charge development to help pay for infrastructure, trunk infrastructure, then it needs a charges resolution. Now, that charges resolution is split between us and also Unity Water. So, Unity Water has a proportion of the maximum charge that they can charge. That's been in an agreement since 2014, or actually prior to as well.

05:38:00 And council can only charge up to the maximum. So, there are a number of developments, like one bedroom units, secondary dwellings, et cetera, that council has actually reduced the charges for various reasons. But, yeah, council cannot go above the maximum charge rate for a development use in GFA and a number of bedrooms for residential. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. Sort of a follow up on that, and given that we had the housing monitoring report earlier today. So, the 3.7% increase and acknowledging that we have... We have wavered some of our fees for secondary dwellings. Just want to understand whether we've considered the need for affordable housing, and particularly

05:39:00 for smaller residential blocks, whether that 3.7% increase is going to have any impact. Yeah. Speaker 4: The 3.7% increase relates directly to last year's charge rate compared to this year's charge rate. Council also applies rebates for various types of developments, which includes affordable housing and all that sort, through its policy for infrastructure charges rebates for community organisations. Yeah. So, we've... It's covered in that other document as well. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone care to move the motion? Councillor Wilson. Seconded by Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilson. Speaker 9: I'll wait back around. Thanks.

05:40:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Luke, for the report. It's always very thorough. It's very dry work that you do, but it's very important work. Yeah. It helps us recoup... The council and the ratepayers recoup some costs for the infrastructure provision for new developments. Yeah. But we do have the discretion to waive infrastructure charges for affordable dwellings and secondary dwellings, as you've mentioned, in areas that we want to encourage the proliferation of certain types of dwellings. So, thank you very much for the report. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you, Lord. Speaker 4: Thank you. Okay. Yeah. You're welcome. Thank you. Bye. Thanks, Luke. Thank you, Luke. Mayor Wilkie: We have now the review of the Community Purpose Land and Infrastructure Tenure Policy. We have Clint Irwin. Welcome, Clint. Speaker 16: Hello.

05:41:00 Speaker 14: Good afternoon, councillors. Yeah, I'm Richard. Yeah, Richard. I'm here. Hayley, the author of the report, is unfortunately away, so unable to present. She's done a lot of the work, but Clint and I are going to tag team and give you an update on this. So, the report, as you're aware, seeks approval to repeal the existing Community Purpose Land and Infrastructure Tenure Policy and adopt a new Community Tenure Policy. The review was identified as an action in the Council's 2526 Operational Plan and has been undertaken to ensure our approach to community tenure remains contemporary, transparent and aligned with Council's governance, asset management and financial sustainability objectives. The current policy has served councillors. Council and the community well sits at adoption in 2015. However, over time, community expectations, asset management practices and governance requirements have evolved. This review has identified opportunities to strengthen decision-making processes, improve

7.2.3 REVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY PURPOSE LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE TENURE POLICY ¶

▶ 05:41:07· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

05:42:00 consistency and transparency, better align tenure arrangement with Council's asset management framework and provide clearer guidance for community organisations. Feedback received from community groups and stakeholders over time has been collated and has helped informed review and improvement to Council's Community Tenure Policy. The new policy established a principles based framework for the allocation management and review of community tenure arrangements. It introduces clearer eligibility requirements, assessment criteria and allocation principles to support fair, transparent and consistent decision making. Importantly, it ensures community tenure, it ensures tenure arrangements continue to A significant enhancement in this policy is the introduction of a contemporary rental framework.

05:43:00 This framework recognises that community organisations deliver varying levels of community benefit and operate with different levels of organisational capacity and commercial activity. The framework provides a more equitable and transparent basis for determining rental charges and financial assistance, whilst also supporting the long-term financial sustainability of Council's community infrastructure portfolio and reducing dependency on funding from the general rates. It is important to highlight that as part of the proposed new policy, around 85% of the current community groups will remain on the standard one unit rental charge for tenure, which is around $639. The policy does not amend or replace any existing lease permit or licence arrangements, nor does it immediately change the rights or obligations of existing community organisations. Rather, it establishes the strategic framework Council will apply when making community tenure decisions. The policy also strengthens the integration of community

05:44:00 tenure and asset management by placing greater emphasis on life cycle planning, whole of life costs and early collaboration on capital improvements and externally funded projects. This will help ensure Council and community organisations work together to plan for the ongoing management and sustainability of community assets. Council has already recently taken on statutory maintenance, fire, electrical and pest responsibility for the majority of community groups to reduce costs to those groups but also ensure consistent oversight of these important maintenance activities. The proposed policy also confirms Council controlled land should not be used to facilitate the establishment of or expansion of electronic gaming machine activities through community tenure arrangements. This is consistent with Council's commitment to fostering healthy, safe and inclusive communities. While broad community consultation has not been undertaken as

05:45:00 part of the review, it is proposed that engagement will occur directly with the individual community organisations as their tenure agreements approach expiry. This will provide an opportunity to explain the new framework, discuss its practical application and support collaborative transition to future tenure arrangements. Overall, the proposed policy provides Council with a modern, transparent and strategically aligned framework that supports responsible stewardship of public assets, sustainable financial management and the continued delivery of long-term community benefit. Thanks and over to you, councillors. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: Question. I think it's every three months we have a business round table and I was wondering how hard it would be to have once a year a round table with community groups. So you're talking about having like conversations when their tenure's coming up and I just felt like it would be a really

05:46:00 good opportunity even if they're it's not up for renewal at the same time because I imagine they're already different times. But with the asset management stuff that's being done by council, I would love to know how hard it would be to have that and have councillors invited. It would be a really good opportunity to see what's happening out on the ground. We've just had that terms of reference from nursing orders. So just wondering if it would be difficult. Speaker 13: Well, through the chair, councillor, I think that's a good idea. It has happened historically, where we've had community development officers who are out there working with the various committees. So I think that that should be just best practice. But I do think it's probably a team effort between ourselves and also our community development officers who are out there working with community groups to build capacity and capability. So I think that is a good model.

05:47:00 Speaker 14: One suggestion I think would be a good opportunity to leave it into is that we currently meet with a lot of those community groups and we'll give them advice on the grants, community grants. I think that's a great opportunity when we're all together in the room discussing around grants, but also to talk around community tenure more broadly. So what we can do is, you know, we're happy to have a conversation with our community development team around the timing for that. And that could be a good opportunity to expand that to discuss tenure and potentially also have councillors available if they would like to come along for that discussion Speaker 13: as well. And we can meet with those groups from those grants discussions. If there's specific tenure questions that the development officers can't answer, then they can come back to us and we'll deal with that with the development officers. A follow-up question. It might just be Councillor Phillips: my perspective, but it feels like potentially having like multiple conversations of almost the

05:48:00 same. And I'd love to see like a more streamlined get together and work out who's going through similar things or if it's grants and then it's assets. Not information, but actually just sharing both what we're doing that affects them and then vice versa of what they're finding is challenging because it might be that someone else feels the same way and like helping, not necessarily like our role could be just bringing them together. I think about LGAQ, sorry, the LDMG meeting where we get all like the stakeholders in and it's a really good opportunity just to even know each other coming into disasters, all that sort of stuff. Speaker 13: As I said, I know the community connection already do that. They bring the halls together. And in fact, I've just had a message through from my colleague in community development that's backing us in what we're saying. So we're not making this up. So, so it's already happening with the hall groups and so on. So it's not a, it's not a difficult model to

05:49:00 actually extend. So we're already doing it. So I think that's fine. Speaker 14: Yeah. So happy to support that concept and you're suggesting councillors also, I think they're invited anyway to around the grants piece anyway, if they wouldn't want to sit in on that, but that could be an opportunity. I think that would be really good for me to, Councillor Phillips: rather than having multiple conversations about myself, just to kind of work out what's the common theme maybe is important. Speaker 13: We have sports complex committees as well. And that's been a model that Noosa's done for many years. And like Noosa's sports complex, for example, is one that comes to mind. So that, that model has been happening for four years. So. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. Just a couple of questions. First of all, the proposed policy. So there's our gaming position, which I'm very happy about. There's shortened lease terms. What I've understood some, we've got five years and some historically have had 10 years. And there's a new rental framework.

05:50:00 So question is have we met with the community groups and actually just got feedback from them in terms of the proposed framework? And if so, what, what's, what's been the reaction? Speaker 13: So that has occurred, but it hasn't happened with every, every group. As we say in the report, the policy is the overarching framework. And as community tenure expires, we'll get into those detailed discussions with groups and the guidelines specifically there. But the tenure arrangements have reduced back because 10 years under the current policy, 10 years is a long time in community group world. And we do make provision in the policy for if there's exceptional circumstances, if you like, that they can have longer terms. But most of the research that we've done, particularly

05:51:00 down in other councils in Brisbane and other Southeast Queensland councils, they don't offer long lease terms because a lot is changing in the volunteer world. And as I say, 10 years is a long time and it's community group participation or volunteers is, is being challenged. So we've left some flexibility in there. We, we believe that five years from, for a lease term will suit most groups. We understand that that's not going to suit the big, that like, for example, the surf clubs, because they have to loan money and whatever else. So they need longer, longer lease terms, but the current policy in particular. Particularly the new policy, I think really makes that clear that we have flexibility about the types of tenure arrangements we can enter into, whether they're permits or licences or whatever else, and also the, the terms. The rental framework is, that's just following the

05:52:00 model where, you know, probably around 85% of your groups are still going to be on the one unit. So we're really, we're talking around the margins and the small percentage of groups who might be out of that. And that comes back to the criteria that we listing there around, you know, capacity, commerciality and, and, and things of that nature. So I think the, the important point there is that most will be contained in a simple one unit framework as most of them are currently. So and there's no talk at the moment. Well, there's not in this poll, we'll see anyway around changing arrangements now. So they, they come up as the tenure agreements expire, then we get into it now. So we don't, we've got existing arrangements. We honour those. And of course we would. And we don't get into the detail of what the next agreements look like

05:53:00 until we're in front of the committee. And we'll work, we'll work through that, as I say, with the community development, our community development partners to work through that. With each individual group. Mayor Wilkie: Tessa Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. What would be your lead in time? You know, when it's coming up for a renewal, do you, do you like start talking with that committee six months out, four months out, one month out to give? Speaker 13: Well, through the chair, all of that, generally the earlier, the better. To a degree, like we're not going to start three years out on a, on a five year lease, but generally about three to six month mark, depending on how much negotiation we think we might have. Most of them are very, very simple because they're just basically renewals, if you like, of the current arrangements. So there's not really a lot that will change in terms of our approach to how we deal with community groups in that way.

05:54:00 Our approach from a property perspective and also community services is to work with the groups, we're not working against them. We're working with them to make sure that they have that capacity and capability to do what they need to do out on their, out on their venues, out in their facilities. So they can provide that community group service that they've always done. So we, we kind of facilitating them to do what they've always done. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 13: Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: So I get, that was a great explanation. So I kind of get now what, how it'll work from a council perspective, but do you think you could give me an indication of what will change for, like what will they notice? What's a community group when they come up to their renewal, what's changed for them? Speaker 13: Well, through the chair, councillor, the,

05:55:00 as I say, the, most of them won't change in terms of the rental. Well, it will go up a little bit because we're covering costs. So there's still one unit of rent, but as Richard outlined in his, at the start, that goes up. Now that will cover issues like the Peston electrical and fire inspections as statutory maintenance. Those things have traditionally been a bit of an issue for smaller volunteer groups because a lot of, they're just, they're volunteers. They're trying to run programs and, and, you know, attract members and whatever else. They're not the, sort of, they're not the ability managers. So an important change that they will see is that if their fire extinguisher, fire extinguisher is out of date, it won't be out of date in the new, in the new regime, because we'll be the, the contracts in place to make sure that they're all checked. So that, so the idea is none slip through the cracks. However, we are recouping our costs for that, for that as well. So the one unit of rent does increase.

05:56:00 And that's, so we're not putting that impost back onto the rate payer. So it's a two-pronged approach. We address safety risk there because we don't obviously fire and electrical are quite important factors for us and as is pest, termites and whatever else. So there'll be, there is a, there is a rental increase to cover those costs. As we talked about before the tenure terms, as Councillor Lorentson pointed out, some groups are on 10 year terms. Those ones at leases may come back to five in, in many. And then there will be others who have had longer lease terms, say 20 years, like the surf clubs and so on. I would expect that those will remain because they are big organisations and most of the time mortgaged. They have a loan with the bank and whatever else. In terms of the relationship from council to the groups,

05:57:00 nothing changes there. I would expect that to still be, still be quite strong, and particularly given some of the changes that we just talked about before. New tenure arrangements, there will be some additional assessment criteria, which I think is a change to what we've, what we're currently doing now. And those are just making sure that there is, that there is appropriate community benefit being delivered. And this is outlined in the policy, that the governance and financial capacity of the community organisations are appropriate to deliver the services. And we also have a look at the level of commerciality. Now, most of the organisations don't have a high level of commerciality because they're volunteer groups. So it's basically, as I say, working with community service to have a

05:58:00 proper, a proper assessment of these things. Most of the time, the groups don't change, but some will, some will want to introduce new commercial elements. And we, and we look at that to see, well, okay, does anything kind of change in their tiering or is it still one unit of rent? And as I say, most of the time that will still remain unaffected. Councillor Phillips: Last question then, how will we measure success on it? That it hasn't, and I'm not suggesting it will, but what, if there is onerous, something that ends up being the feedback that it's somehow more difficult for volunteers or, and I don't, I'm not suggesting it is, but what's the trick, what's our measure of policy success, not just from internal, but like these people provided an exceptional service for our community. So I always thought rate payers, like it could come out of general rates. I don't often think that we have to.

05:59:00 That's my perspective, but what they're providing a benefit, what happens if it's onerous on them or there's, we already hear volunteers are burning out. What's the trigger that it would cause Speaker 13: changes to the policy? Well, in, in the policy itself, the councillor, there's two sections that come to mind. And one is the financial hardship for group goes through financial hardship, um, and also review of rental arrangements. So I guess those two additions to the policy introduce some flexibility. So council can look at the community organisation's financial position. Do we have to step in here? Traditionally, we have been in more involved with community halls because we say that the management committee manages the hall on behalf of council. If that group were not there, it would be up to council to manage the hall. So we're pretty pragmatic with that too. And I think those, those examples of financial hardship and review of rental

06:00:00 arrangements are two examples in the policy of how these arrangements are under review. So we're not that dogmatic about it, that we wouldn't look at that and step in and help depending on what the problem was, um, to help those groups, um, survive and thrive. That said, there will be some groups there potentially who may have dwindling membership or whatever else, or it might be just a, um, a, a, a dying activity, if you like, where there's no amount of saving, we'll save it. Do you know what I mean? But so sometimes the trends that those things happen in activities where it's things not as popular as it, as it used to be. So we wouldn't enter into a situation where we're trying to save something that's not savable. But I just want to highlight that those two additions to the existing policy, I think are very, um, indicative of the approach that Council would

06:01:00 take. It will be pragmatic about these things and work with the group to try and support them to be successful and, and have that capability and capacity. Councillor Latterson. Councillor Wilson: Oh, that's okay. I was just going to move the motion. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Um, sort of a follow-up from what Councillor Phillips said. Is it possible, if we could get, um, a full list of all the current community tenure arrangements, understanding what the facility is, what land types. So as I'm reading the report, there is so much in, in it. So there's, um, a lease, uh, permit, a trustee lease, a trustee permit, different tenures, different, um, uh, arrangements, um, different lease. Um, so, so to me, just for visibility for myself, as well as for the clubs, it'd be great to understand what all the groups, who are all the groups, what the tenure looks like, um,

06:02:00 the current tenure type, expiry date, and whether a renewal will fall under the existing or new proposal and understand what that actually means. So who has a 10-year lease? Um, are we talking one organisation? I know the Pony Club, for example, got a 10-year lease. It'd just be great to have that visibility. Um, so that question, um, my question is, is that a big ask? Speaker 13: Well, well, through the chair, it is an ask. Um, I guess it goes to, to purpose, um, uh, for what the list is, is for, um, I mean, just going to your point before about the different types of tenure arrangements and so on. The distinction to me might be, um, you know, the, the one thing that we made there is that the Trustland is obviously, and I know you've just had a big discussion on that just before, the Trustland being state land with council as trustee,

06:03:00 and then there are the ones where council is the, is the freehold owner. Now, if it were all the, the one land designation, we would harve that, it would just be permit, or licence and lease. So, um, that's the only reason why there are double the amount of categories, because we have, Basically two types of land category. So about 65% of the land designation is councillor's trustee and the other 35% is where council freehold. I mean, I have no personal objection to supplying a list. I mean, that's fine. Speaker 14: I think we might have given that when we had their second workshop a little while ago, councillors, that we did have a list of them. Based on their categorisation and obviously the majority of them sort of sit in that tier one, which is the one rental.

06:04:00 It was really the ones that had high commercial sort of financial generating activity, which was probably the focus around their rental charges and whether that is, you know, commensurate with, I guess, their financial capacity and what the rent should be in relation to those, which was essentially some surf clubs, RSL and Yacht Club in that bracket. But the majority of them were the other smaller community groups that had limited financial capacity to fund. But we're happy to look at, we'll get you a bit of a list. We can go to that 90, 10 year arrangement. Councillor Lorentson: Look, I don't want to make this onerous. I think what I really want to understand, maybe simplify the request by asking who is going to be most impacted. I understand, you know, those that are holding 10 year leases. So I don't want to ratify this and then in a month's time, find out from sporting groups that we just, you know, signed off on a five year lease when they've understood

06:05:00 or we've reduced that certainty or the period from 10 years. So maybe on notice, who is going to be most impacted? Yeah. Speaker 14: And happy to clarify that to provide some assurance. I think the key thing is, is if there are, say, sporting groups that are looking at undertaking, you know, broader rentals. So if they're looking at new development activities, maybe as part of their clubs, then that will look at a longer tenure. Because as Clint mentioned around things like if they need to get mortgage or subject to grant funding, they're going to need sufficient tenure even to apply for the grants in the first place. So we will work with the club on ensuring that they have that certainty of tenure as well. And that's part of the negotiations as well. Speaker 13: The other thing, sorry, through the chair, councillor, a lot of the groups are not, they don't want the long term tenure. Some of them see it as a, particularly in the smaller groups, as a commit along a long term commitment.

06:06:00 They see it that way. So, I mean, we can provide a snapshot, I guess, of that. I wouldn't anticipate that being an issue because not potentially going to go to war with the community group over, you know, over a couple of years of tenure. We're just being more, I guess, we, our approach is reflecting what is happening in community world and particularly the changeover that we find on committees now. We're not, we're not, and you probably see that, we're not getting community members who are sticking it out for 10 and 20 years. You might get it like a two year kind of turnover. So those issues around, and when you get that, you often get instability in those groups as well, and they can lose direction and focus and whatever else. So that five yearly term quite often is not a lot of time,

06:07:00 but we think it's more of a happy medium around being able to have that review point. Because 10 years can be a long time for a group to kind of stick it out, particularly if they're not, then they don't have a lot of membership, the site's not being activated and whatever else. So if we're, you know, two years in and we've got another eight years to try and activate a site, the light is at the end of the tunnel for not only council, but other community groups who, who may wish to use that site, if it's only three years away, if you know what I mean. Councillor Lorentson: And I don't disagree with anything you were saying, Clint, my concern is, is whether those community groups are aware that we're making this change. I think that's probably the question I'm really asking. I agree with you, but it's more, I don't want to find out after the fact that they've been told about it.

06:08:00 Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Wilson is moving the motion. I'll second, Councillor Finzel will second it. You can, you can ask questions. Councillor Wilson, you wish to speak? Councillor Wilson: Just briefly, just thanks for the report and for the workshops leading up to this as well. Lots of work got into it, really important work. Particularly liked the attachment three high level comparison, really clear of what's actually changing and the impact of that. And also really pleased to see the restrictions in gaming activity. That's it, thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Phillips, you had another question? Councillor Phillips: My brain's just a little bit dry. Remind me how, Elise. Do we, do they come to us? Or how do I see those getting renewed if it's in three years? Does that, do we approve every single one of them? No, it's under delegation. So do they get reported to us? Speaker 13: Leases, there is a requirement to report leases to council.

06:09:00 Now, that's under the local government. So, but this doesn't apply to permits. It's for the disposal of an interest in land for a non-current asset, which is a lease. So I'll just answer that by saying, generally speaking, they should come to council for oversight and ticking off. For us, generally, those have been, you know, we see them as renewals, if you like, because we have the same, the same, we've had the same lease term, the same kind of circumstances surrounding the lease renewal and whatever else. But yes, those are required to come to council for adoption, if you like.

06:10:00 And we have done that in the past, I should say. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. So rental charges, what is one unit base? Because I don't, I think I looked at that during the budget. Speaker 14: Yes, it's $639. That's up from? Yeah, so it was about $400. So, and you recall, I think we had the first workshop, we were looking at taking off the burden of the, of the mandatory stuff, which was the fire, the electrical and the pest, because the community groups, some of the smaller ones, we're finding they're struggling to be able to do that. So we've said, well, for a couple of hundred bucks, we can get one contractor to pretty much service most of them at a reduced rate and then take that burden off those groups and we'll add a small amount to the fee to cover that for the whole year. So we've now sort of taken on that responsibility. So that's already in place with those groups and we've heard no negative feedback at all. I think in fact, there's a sigh of relief because it's one less thing that they have to worry

06:11:00 about. And for us too, it ensures that we know that those buildings have got the basic sort of servicing, you know, maintenance under, that's being undertaken, you know, to the standard that we think is okay. Yeah. That's $426. $426. Councillor? Councillor Finzel: Just in terms of record keeping for that, I was recently at a meeting with a community group around that. I mean, it's great, that gets done. But then there was difficulty in tracking, like, had that maintenance actually happened? Is the onus on the organisation to say, have a sign in book, if that person comes in, they do the check the fire? Who's responsible to keep the record that that has been undertaken? Speaker 13: Well, through the Chair, probably two, two areas for that. Probably us, if we engage the contractor. But I'll respond to that. We also expect there to be some type of log of that on site. So the service records should come back to us because we engage the contractor to, under

06:12:00 a contract for the whole lot of services, to undertake. So it's a two, two areas that have responsibility. Speaker 14: Yeah. Practically speaking. Usually they'll have a sticker or something with it when they've done the pest or the electrical, but we'll get a copy of that as well for our own records. There should be one on site. And then we'll get the answers right through. Speaker 16: Thank you. Speaker 14: Councillor Moody. Councillor Lorentson: Just the last question from me. We had a recent deputation from the Croy Gymnastic Club and their tenants. And there is, was a possibility that some council operated works would disrupt their operations. My question is under current. Just be aware of the conflict of interest, Councillor. Oh. Yeah. I know the other question. Speaker 12: Maybe it's a question you can ask us. Is that possible? Oh, okay. Councillor Lorentson: I'll take the example out. Yeah. My question is whether our current processes, do we have any way that a tenant could seek

06:13:00 a rent relief? And have we considered, you know, compensation, renovatement as part of this new policy in situations where, you know, council works, disrupts or extends or, you know, extends significantly, disrupts, say, the operations of a club. Speaker 14: We've, as Clint said, we've got the hardship provisions. The hardship. That we've actually built. Councillor Lorentson: Not a rent relief. I'm just wondering. Speaker 14: Well, we have made reference and this is a change from the previous one. We talk about the subsidy for those community groups that are providing community, overwhelmed community benefits and don't have the financial capacity. So I guess it's acknowledging to Councillor Jess's point that some of the rental arrangements are subsidised because, you know, $600 for the building facility for a year doesn't cover all the costs. But we acknowledge the important work that they provide for our broader community on

06:14:00 behalf of council and therefore there's a subsidised, you know, piece to that. But you're referring more to unforeseen circumstances or impacts. Yeah. No, no. Speaker 13: Sorry. Just through the chair. Councillor, those, the rent that we charge is a cost, is a cost recovery. So it's for, you know, like it's for those costs that we've talked about there. And also a portion of that is also the administrative cost as well. I don't know, there may be some examples I'd have to go back and look at it where there was some extenuating. Sorry. Circumstance where there was a rental abatement, if you like. But it is not common practice because it's not like, they're not like commercial rental arrangements where, you know, it's, it's quite a different scenario.

06:15:00 This is a cost recovery scenario for services that are happening in order for the group to safely occupy the facility. So it's slightly different to a commercial rental arrangement. That said, though, as I said at the outset, I wouldn't, I'm not going to discount it. And I can't say that it's never happened. I'd have to have a think about it. But as I say, we've got, we've got sufficient flexibility there for a group. If they think they are severely affected that they can make the case whether they'd be successful or not. Of course, they'd have to hit the, the criteria in there and, and but yeah, it's, it's, that one is a yes and no type scenario because it's all specific, it's specific to the, the actual circumstance. It's hard to give a broad brush kind of yes or no to that.

06:16:00 Councillor Lorentson: If you know what I mean, I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to work in the grey here, but Speaker 13: it is a little bit difficult to give you a dead set answer on that. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Before Councillor Wilson wishes to close, any other speakers? Councillor Phillips: I'm just going to, rather than asking more questions, just make a couple of comments more just to conversational. I'd love to see a definition of community benefit. I think we see it across many documents and that's a very broad term. So I think that would be a great thing to see eventually. And maybe just on the future rate payers, like, again, the way I see it, is there providing such a community benefit, which we don't have a definition of? Speaker 14: There is a definition, yeah. I've searched. It's the first one. We knew you were going to ask that. A demonstrable benefit to the New South Wales community arising from the delivery of sporting, recreational, cultural, environmental, education, social health or community services,

06:17:00 programs, activities or facilities. That contribute to community well-being and that align with council's strategic objectives. So I'm feeling bored. But it's under five definitions. Councillor Phillips: I searched for, okay. Well, I'm glad there's a definition of community benefit because that really helps. And I think that sometimes when there's these community facilities that are providing, a service, that sometimes the rate payer will subsidise it because otherwise usually they'll incur, they'll pass the cost on to the rate payer anyway, and it does the circle. So that didn't make any sense, but hopefully you can work that out. Mayor Wilkie: No, I think we're on. Okay. Nice, Dan. Further speakers? Council wishes to close. No. Put it to the vote. Those in favour? That is unanimous.

06:18:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Clint. Mayor Wilkie: And it brings us to item 7.2.4, Planning and Environment Court Appeal, 1576 of 2026, Short Stay, Letting Local Law Review Decision, 8 Widders Circuit, Mr. Heads, and welcome, Nick Boundford. Good afternoon, councillors. Councillor Wegener: Hello. Mayor Wilkie: Hi. Evening. We'll be certain. Mr. CEO, under what circumstances will we need to take this into consideration? Is it confidential if we're just discussing details? Speaker 14: It will depend on. Mayor Wilkie: Legal arguments? Speaker 14: Yeah, it will depend on what I would say is councillors being mindful of if they want to discuss any specifics of the matter given it's subject to current proceedings, but happy to sort of talk more generally, I guess, and maybe ask Nick if there's any sort of background that may be of help, but it will be relatively high level as opposed to specific.

7.2.4 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 1576 OF 2026 - SHORT STAY LETTING LOCAL LAW REVIEW DECISION - 8 WITTA CIRCUIT, NOOSA HEADS ¶

▶ 06:18:08· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

06:19:00 It's an evidence-based feedback. Okay. Speaker 15: Okay, Nick. Thank you. So this is the appeal to a compliance notice for 8 Widders Circle. On the 24th of March, 2022, 8 Widders Circle Circuit was granted a short-stay letting approval. On the 3rd of December, 2025, after a number of complaints had been made to the 24-7 office, a hotline, a show cause notice was issued to the approval holder, notifying the approval holder that there would be amendment to the conditions of the approval. Specifically, they must not set conditions 7.2, use the outdoor entertainment area, premises or outdoor lighting after 9pm or before 6am and 7.2.6.b.6.

06:20:00 If there are no amendments to the conditions, they must not use the outdoor entertainment area, premises or outdoor lighting after 9pm or before 6am and 7.2.6.b.6. Show cause notice is as a timeframe for a submission for appeal. On the 19th of December, the approval holder's legal representative sought further information from council and extension to that time. On the 30th of January, 2026, council received that submission. Complaints were largely substantiated. The complaints are largely substantiated, came from a single neighbour. The complaints are largely substantiated, came from a single neighbour. If the reputation of the Rotation community was unreasonable, existing approval conditions are adequate. The proposed additional conditions are unnecessary, reasonable or unsupported by evidence. If the correspondence also sought the council to side on section 18.3. the local law would not proceed to change the amendment to short-stay local law approval. On the 26th of March, having reviewed that correspondence, council officers decided to

06:21:00 To the approval holder. So there were changes to those conditions. So they decided to must not use the outdoor entertainment area premises or outdoor lighting in those areas other than security lighting and the beam which is angled directly to the property after 9pm and 6am and use a swim pool after 9pm and before 7am. On the 31st of March, the approval holder sought an internal review for that decision. In consideration of that approval request, the council delegate has regarded the eight complaints received between the 3rd of September and the 28th of November 2025. The complaints generally related to noise emanating from the guests located between the hours of 9.07pm and 12.20am.

06:22:00 Having considered that material and satisfied that the grounds have been in place, the council delegate has regarded the complaints received between the 3rd of September and the 28th of November 2025. Prescribed Activity. Actions necessary to prevent a loss of immunity and demonstrate non-compliance with conditions of approval. Accordingly, a letter is sent to the approval holder to confirm that decision to issue amended approval. The applicant has repealed that review decision and seeks additional conditions to be removed from the approval. I'm seeking Council's agreement to defend that appeal. We have calls, we have photographs and recordings. Speaker 14: In terms of with the onus, so the onus is on the appellant, so they are appealing essentially our internal review decision, so the onus is on them to prove that the decision that

06:23:00 Council made was, you know, outside of its, a reasonable response outside of its jurisdiction. Councillor Phillips: So the question. But what's our, sorry, what's our onus of proof, is it balance of probabilities or have we got to prove the unreasonable amount? Speaker 14: Balance of, balance of probabilities. Speaker 15: Yeah. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Speaker 15: I believe we've hit the threshold of enough evidence to support this. Okay. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Our local law already requires guests to not cause a nuisance or detrimentally affect a residential amenity. I'm, my question is, did we try to enforce our local laws instead of progressing through a show course notice, an amended approval, an internal review and then a court appeal? Speaker 15: Yeah. Prior to this, we have gone through other compliance. And we have had correspondence and meetings with the owner and the property manager to

06:24:00 try and mitigate some of these noises. Nothing has come out of that as far as able to stop this residential amenity being impacted by the neighbour. And I believe that the complaints between 9.07 and 12.00 AM is sufficient to put a condition in place. To stop that. Our own guide that we published, the guide to good management does also mention that in there, but it is suggested that outdoor areas after 9.00 PM and swimming pools after 8.00 PM are not used. Councillor Lorentson: So my, my question is, we've already got the local law. We've also got the code of conduct. And now. We're going to appeal to enforce or put a condition on what should already be enforceable.

06:25:00 I'm, I'm. My question is. Okay. I'm going to change the question. How much so far is, has this cost rate pays in terms of legal fees? Speaker 14: Through the chair. I mean, the matter has just been lodged with appeal recently, but. To date? Yeah. In terms of, well, we've just only received the appeal recently, which is why we're coming to council for instructions, but we would have some costs today incurred because obviously since we lodged, we will have to respond to those appeal, but it would be a relatively small amount in relation to this particular matter. What I would add though, just on the comments around the, the provisions, the changes we see are reasonable. And the fact is that they are consistent with our own good neighbourhood guideline document, which is what we publish to the community around what reasonable expectations look like

06:26:00 around protecting amenity and conduct. Although those provisions are not mandatory and enforceable lab, a good neighbourhood guide, but we believe they are reasonable to manage and protect amenity. And we apply those where we believe that there's risk of amenity being impacted. And we in this case believed through a very thorough process that it's appropriate that those restrictions are put in place to protect amenity. Councillor Lorentson: So will this happen every time there's someone not abiding with our code of conduct? Do we have to proceed to an appeal to get it conditioned? I'm just sort of understanding. Speaker 14: No, no. This went through a process where we issued a notice under the local law and they have a right of reply essentially. And council's obviously undertaken its process. They've sought an internal review, which they can't do. They can do that. And we haven't, we've considered their correspondence and have maintained our position that it's

06:27:00 still reasonable to put that. They're now challenging that to the Plenty Environment Court. And that's their right, I guess, to challenge that. But in terms of the process that will unfold, that's obviously will be subject to council's decision whether it defends or not. Mayor Wilkie: So this is the next step, taking court action to enforce it? Speaker 14: Well, no, they're appealing against our agreement. They're appealing against our internal review. So it's not us commencing legal action as such. It's us being involved in an appeal against our internal review to maintain the position. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener and Councillor Phillips? Councillor Wegener: Oh, I just, I'd like to move, yeah, the report and appeal. Mayor Wilkie: Moved by Councillor Wegener. Second. Seconded by Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Oh, I think this is a very interesting case. It actually has quite a large amount of ramifications for the future of our local laws, I feel. I think it's really important that we follow through with this appeal and give it our full

06:28:00 support. And we have to remember, this isn't a residence, this is a business we're talking about. Mayor Wilkie: Yep. Councillor Phillips: Questions? Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, Councillor Phillips? Councillor Phillips: Can I, I'm really sorry, but can I ask us to go into confidential? Because I think I have a question that I want to ask on. Of course. Because, yeah. Of course. Mayor Wilkie: So, Kabi. I have a resolution to go into confidential, please, Kabi. Councillor Phillips: It might not be, but I'd rather. Sure. So, can I just move a procedural motion that the meeting be closed to the public in accordance with Section 254 of the LG Regulation of 2012. This is not publicly available, as it contains information that is confidential to the local government. Yeah. To Section 254 . Mayor Wilkie: We have a seconder for that please, seconded Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That is unanimous.

07:01:00 Councillor Wegener: So we are the leaders, we have a vision to balance resident amenity with SDA business disruptions. We lead Australia with our local laws, the effectiveness of our local laws are being tested and we must defend our position wholeheartedly. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you, Nick. Next item is, next as well, Planning and Environment Court Appeal 1763 of 2026, Short-Sail Leading Local Law Review Decision at 5, Unit 5, 7, Paisa Court, Noosa Heads. Speaker 15: Okay, this is, yeah, Unit 5, 7, Paisa Court Appeal, on the 15th of June 2023, they apply

7.2.5 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 1763 OF 2026 - SHORT STAY LETTING LOCAL LAW REVIEW DECISION - 5/7 PEZA COURT, NOOSA HEADS ¶

▶ 07:01:41· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

07:02:00 for an application for short-sail letting. Part of the criteria they had to meet is either A, have a development approval, which they haven't got, B, an accepted amendment on the News of Plan 2020, which it was not, or C, novel existing use rights, which they believe they had. During the application process, they were given information as to supply existing use rights to show that they had, before 2026, to show that they had commenced short-sail letting. That's up until the time of the application. This went back and forth for quite some time, until 15th of January 2025, trying to help them seek their existing use rights. They failed to produce those documents. So the application couldn't be assessed. So the application elapsed. On the 9th of March 2022.

07:03:00 2026, officers undertook an audit of Paisa Court and the surrounding area and noticed that there was a sign outside of Unit 5, 7, Paisa Court on further investigation, found them advertising on the internet for short-sail accommodation. A compliance notice was raised on the 1st of April, Com 260110 was issued, to immediately stop their activity and, or, apply for short-sail letting. That decision to stop was then sent to head review decision again, where I reviewed the evidence of that unit operating without short-sail letting approval, and no application. I upheld that decision on the 15th of May, and filed a response to affirm the decision,

07:04:00 and I'm happy with that. With a compliance notice, 12th of June, the appeal was lodged with Paling Environmental Court. So I seek Council's agreement to defend that appeal. Mayor Wilkie: Same law firm involved. Okay. I'm happy to move it. I'll second it. Thank you. Yeah. Almost similar circumstances. Thank you. It's very important we defend these appeals. Yeah. See how it plays out. It's very important we defend. Speaker 15: Yeah. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Discussion? Put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Now, item 7.2.6, Paling Environmental Court Appeal 1842, 2026, for minor change.

07:05:00 Thank you, Nick Boundary. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Nick. Mayor Wilkie: A minor change to a development permit for a material change of use for a duplex dwelling at Unit 2, 16 Grant Street, Noosa Heads. We have Ben McKay. Welcome back, Ben. Afternoon, Mr. Mayor. Could you talk us through this, please? Speaker 1: Yes. I can assume that the report has been read, so I'll just touch on some of the high-level considerations. There was an application for a dual occupancy at 16 Grant Street that was approved in 2018. The application, sorry, on the inspection of the development, there was noted to be changes to the, or what was built. Essentially, there were differences with what was meant to be the natural ground level, so the lower level of the development was intended to essentially perform as a basement. However, it now essentially performed as a third storey or as additional ground floor

7.2.6 MCU17/0559.05 - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 1842 OF 2026 - FOR MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A DUPLEX DWELLING AT 2/16 GRANT STREET, NOOSA HEADS ¶

▶ 07:05:02· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

07:06:00 area. So, to assist with essentially allowing for plan seal and for the development to be finalized, officers negotiated with the applicant to install some planter boxes that would essentially screen the lower level, so essentially the lower level would still perform as a basement, as was intended. That had occurred, the new purchaser had since purchased the site, and Council received an application. So, those planter boxes were installed, the planter boxes at 1.5 metres in height, that would essentially bring the proposal back into compliance. In February 2026, Council received an application by one of the tenants at Unit 2 to remove these planter boxes. Officers assessed that proposal, and in consideration of the planter boxes that were installed, the original decision to amend the original permit and implement these measures to then

07:07:00 bring the proposal back into compliance resolved to refuse the minor change application. The applicant since appealed that decision to the Planning and Environment Court on the 23rd of June, and they contended that the planter boxes would not adversely affect surrounding properties, and would improve the amenity and maintenance of the premises. So, that's the position that we're in at the moment, and our recommendation is to note the appeal and resolve to defend the proceedings. Mayor Wilkie: Questions? Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to move the report. I move Councillor Morrison. I second. Does that move Councillor Wilson? Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Morrison? Councillor Lorentson: No, I waive my right to speak. Thank you very much, Ben, for the report. Mayor Wilkie: Yep. Any other councillors? Okay, put it to the vote. Those in favour? Thank you, Mr. Anonymous. Thank you, Ben. Thank you, Mr. Anonymous. Thank you, Mr. Anonymous. Thank you, Richard. Have a good day. Thank you. Speaker 15: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Sustained, concise advice over many hours today.

7.2.7 DELEGATIONS ANNUAL REVIEW - COUNCIL TO CEO ¶

▶ 07:07:59· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

07:08:00 Thank you. Thank you. 7.2.7, Delegations' Annual Review of Powers from the CEO and the Council to the CEO. Councillor Wegener: The note agrees with the House. Who? Speaker 9: I'm going to pass it on to Rebecca to give you an overview. Yes. Speaker 5: And so this report is about the Annual Review of Delegations of Powers from Council to the CEO. The Reviewed Register of Delegations is attached to the report as item one. As you are aware, the delegation of powers is required so that council officers can appropriately authorise to conduct their daily duties, so that council can provide service to the community efficiently, and so that you, as councillors, can focus on high-level strategic

07:09:00 matters. The statutory powers required for council to operate are conferred to councillors by acts and regulations. The Local Government Act allows council, by resolution, to delegate these powers to the CEO. The Act then allows the CEO to further delegate the powers to appropriately qualified employees and contractors of council. This stage of the review and this report is only in relation to the council to CEO delegations. It is required under the Local Government Act that delegations from council to the CEO are reviewed annually by council. This is to ensure that the delegations align with any relevant legislative changes and new legislation enacted. After receiving our Annual Delegations Update from the Local Government Association of Queensland, the Governance Branch commenced our Annual Delegations Review in January. The review included the Governance Branch, Legal Council, and where relevant, operational

07:10:00 areas assessed in each specific update recommended by LGAQ. It also included recently hosting a council workshop in which we explained in detail to you the delegation concepts, the Annual Delegation Review process, the steps that Governance Branch undertook as part of this year's review, and the outcome of the 2026 Annual Delegation Review exercise. The outcome of the council workshop conducted last month is the 2026 Council to CEO Delegation Register presented with today's report as attachment 1. As you can see in the report, in this 2026 review, Governance in consultation with councillors updated 26 of the existing registers. One new Delegation Register was implemented and 60 current Delegation Registers remained unchanged. The recommendation today is that the council note the report by the Governance Officer

07:11:00 to the General Committee dated 11 August 2026. And to adopt the Register of Delegations, Council to CEO pursuant to Section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009 to delegate the powers of the local government outlined in the Register of Delegations provided in attachment 1 to the CEO of Noosaville Shire Council. Thank you. Thank you Rebecca. Mayor Wilkie: It is. It is. It is. It is. Councillor Wilson: A lot of work goes into this, and it's a very thorough process, and thank you for doing it every year, and I'm happy to support you.

07:12:00 Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Finzel: I'd just like to just add to that, the workshop that you brought to us was very comprehensive, and I think hence we don't have to ask too many questions this afternoon, because I think we asked them around the table, and you responded accordingly. So thank you for the amount of work to yourself and the staff that's been involved in the process. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson and then Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson: Just to note that I've noted just some small changes, but really important changes to the reporting, and the diagrams, and I know Councillor Wegener loves colour, but it really does help in terms of understanding the process. So just thank you, and just continuous improvement each time we get the report is acknowledged, and appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: Diana, your team, and you give me a lot of confidence in anything that comes from your department.

07:13:00 So I don't often feel, yeah, I don't know, it just gives me absolute confidence when it comes from you. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: We are blessed with very skilled professionals in our executive team and managers who give us excellent advice, and help us, guide us towards great decisions. And yeah, it's, thank you for the report and the workshop, which was very instructive. That's all this news to close. Councillor Wilson: 87 rules. That's a lot. That's it. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Those in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you, Rebecca. Thank you, Diana. Thank you. Thank you. Bye, guys. Thank you. There are no confidential items. Item nine is closure. I declare the meeting closed at 5.14.