2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Wilkie: To the ordinary meeting of 17th September 2026, I declare the meeting open at 10 a.m. sharp. I acknowledge that we're meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people. We pay our respects to elders past, present and emerging and acknowledge their recognition of each and every one of us as joint custodians. Respecting and caring for each other. We have all councillors in attendance, although it may not look like it. We have two councillors online, Councillor Nicola Wilson and Councillor Karen Finzel, who are feeling unwell but are joining us online. We have Councillor Wegener, Councillor Amelia Lorentson, Councillor Jessica Phillips, Deputy Mayor Brian Stockwell and Mayor Frank Wilkie. So welcome everybody. Item four is confirmation of the minutes. May I have a move from seconder to the minutes. The ordinary meeting held on the 20th of August 2026. Councillor Lorentson. And seconder, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Speaker 4: Yes.
3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶
00:01:00 Mayor Wilkie: Yes. That's carried unanimously. There are no petitions. There are no presentations. We have one deputation. The deputation applicants Andrew Savage, Rosemary Baker, Bradley Simpson are representing Cooroy and surrounding residents concerned with the proposed amendment number four to the Noosa Plan 2020, Employment Land, Holts Road, Cooroy. And the topic is the proposed amendment. And you have 15 minutes. Would you like to come up to the lectern? Just introduce yourself. Andrew Savage: Good morning, Mayor Wilkie and councillors. My name is Andrew Savage. I'm joined by Rosemary Simpson. Sorry, Rosemary Baker and Bradley Simpson. We represent the Noosa Hinterland Environmental Protection Association Incorporated and a group of over 200 residents in the areas surrounding the 20 hectares on Holts Road proposed to be rezoned from rural to medium impact industrial. I've lived with my family on a rural block overlooking the proposed site for 46 years.
7.1 Deputation Applicant: Andrew Savage, Rosemary Baker, Bradley SimpSon Topic: Proposed Amendment No. 4 to the Noosa Plan - Employment Land at 94 and 170 Holts Road, Cooroy Speakers: Andrew Savage, Rosemary Baker, Bradley SimpSon ¶
00:02:00 So it came as a huge shock to me that the adjacent rural land right in the middle of the water supply buffer area has become a proposed industrial site, especially after being told by council for over 20 years that subdivision of this type was prohibited in rural zoning, especially in the water catchment. We fully support council's aim to facilitate economic development in the Shire. However, we are convinced the proposed site is not suitable. And we especially challenge the adequacy of the appraisals leading to its selection. The 23 SEQ regional plan moved the urban boundary and so was a catalyst for this proposal. However, the SEQ plan did not consider any site specific issues in detail. Put simply, all the SEQ plan says is that we need industrial land and this site is a possibility.
00:03:00 As a side note, the site's proximity to the much smaller six hectare Taylor Court estate needs to be put into context. That estate is zoned low impact industrial, meaning that disruptive polluting activities are not permitted there. By contrast, those activities will be permitted in the new and scaled up 20 hectare medium impact site. Despite it being in a sensitive water supply buffer zone, and despite it being bordered by creeks that flow directly to our water supply, Lake MacDonald. Although the 23 SEQ plan was the catalyst for this proposal, our local state member, Marty Hunt, has assured our action group that Noosa Council will continue to support this proposal. Noosa Council, and not the state government, is the driving force behind this proposal. Council's support for this proposal seems to be driven by the Council Commission Bullenbear report entitled Noosa Employment Land Review.
00:04:00 As with the SEQ plan, this review does not address any site specific issues. Bullenbear's identification of the Holts Road site is simply a cut and paste directly from the SEQ regional plan. There has been no traffic study, no hydrological study, no environmental impact studies, no study on the impact on local residents. In fact, to our knowledge, no detailed site specific studies whatsoever have been done. And we expect such studies would likely deem this site unsuitable. In discussions with Council's Street Strategic Planning staff, we've been told all the site specific issues are to be dealt with when the site is developed. It seems we have been told, trust us, we will make sure the developers address the site specific issues. Excuse my cynicism, but trust and developers in the same sentence don't sit very well together.
00:05:00 We assert that proceeding without any proper site specific studies is putting the cart before the horse and seems reckless. From our discussions with Council planning staff, it also seems that little effort has been devoted to identifying alternative sites. For example, Council owns an undeveloped 10 hectare site in Carpenter Road, Cooroy, already zoned industrial. It borders an existing medium impact industrial estate. Council has stated its intention to develop this industrial site and this site would satisfy the five hectares industrial land need to 2041 as projected in Council's Bull and Bear report. Why not properly consider this site first? Additionally, it seems that Council has not undertaken a detailed investigation into other potential greenfield sites.
00:06:00 The Holt's Road proposal looks to us like a choice of convenience rather than a properly considered choice. In summary, we assert this Council initiated proposed site is unsuitable and Council has not conducted site specific studies to adequately support its suitability, nor has it adequately explored other options. I'll now hand over to Rosemary. Rosemary Baker: Good morning, Mayor Wilkie. Good morning, Councils. One of the most pertinent reasons for this proposal to be adopted is that it is not totally within the Water Resource Catchment and Water Supply Buffer Zone. The proposed rezoning site sits directly within a critical ecological footprint where industrial runoff poses a direct threat to the water quality of Lake Macdonald. The Cooroy Local Plan Code states that the protection of water quality within Lake Macdonald
00:07:00 and the waterways that draw water from Lake Macdonald and the waterways that draw water rain into it is a paramount factor in consideration of development within the water supply catchment. That is an overarching statement, but the finer details and relevant sections are to be found in the Council's planning documents. Council's own words against the Gem Life development said, It is not the Council's case that the additional concentration of pollutant and runoff can cause an unacceptable impact on water quality in Lake Macdonald. Rather, that the introduction of any urban development within the catchment inevitably increases the pollutant load and is contrary to good catchment planning and therefore good town planning.
00:08:00 This statement from Council pertains to a residential development about half the size of what is proposed in Hots Row. The impact from a hard stand development which introduces medium impact industrial activities into this sensitive zone creates an unacceptable risk of chemical spills, heavy metal contamination and toxic stormwater runoff entering our primary drinking water source. The proposal says runoff must be captured and treated on site. But personal observations of this land over 40 years have noted the huge amount of runoff during regular rainfall events. This goes directly into the creeks that border this area, which of course ends up in our water supply. Recent bomb rainfall figures include 212 mm in a single day in 2026 and 368 mm in a single
00:09:00 morning or two. The storage capacity of on-site treatment and retention tanks to contain this amount of runoff in a single morning would be the equivalent of 28 Olympic sized swimming pools. Over the years there have been many such events and Council acknowledges the need to take a precautionary approach with regard to further rainfall increases due to climate change. SEQ Water Consultation is currently occurring as part of the State Interest Review, but has not been finalised. Evidence that will affect the water resource catchment and water supply buffer must inform this amendment. If this amendment is passed, any future development applications will be assessed against the Planning Framework Council sets now.
00:10:00 Any ambiguity in the zoning and its uses can only lead to expensive planning assessments in the future and risks appeals against Council's decisions. It needs to explain how proper preliminary analysis informed the published Framework and Character Plan. If protection of the Lake Macdonald drinking water catchment was sufficiently important to make intensive urban development unacceptable. What technical evidence and planning rationale demonstrate that approximately 20 hectares of new medium impact industry development at Hulse Road can occur within the same water supply catchment without undermining that catchment protection objective. Expansion of the urban footprint under the SEQ Regional Plan does not mean that the land has to be used in one specific way. Noosa Council has the power to decide what the site will be used for and is used in a
00:11:00 way that is consistent with its core values and adheres to their planning scheme. I therefore ask you to reject amendment 4. Thank you. Bradley Simpson: Good morning councillors. My name is Bradley Simpson. I'm here to talk about the impact that rezoning 20 hectares of new medium impact industry development will have on the rural character of the area. We believe the proposed medium impact industry zoning is inappropriate for this location because the surrounding land uses include established rural properties and environmentally sensitive areas. Council's own medium impact industry provisions allow activities with increased risks associated with emissions, noise, odour, dust, waste, damage and pollution. Good morning to all the citizens.
00:12:00 I am Bradley Simpson. I am the City Council Chair for the Region of Tahoe. I am a local resident of New Zealand. The City Council for the Region of Tahoe is the new regional project that is going to address the community and local problems. It will be a collaborative effort between the Council's board members, our local council The local residents, some of whom are here today, have either moved to the area or lived here for a long time to get away from noise, cities and industry. This area was chosen because of the beautiful countryside and natural environment, and the overall rural character of this area and Cooroy. 20 hectares, or 50 acres, nearly four times larger than the current low-impact industrial site, will significantly and irreversibly change the rural character and landscape.
00:13:00 This change represents a significant expansion of intensive urban and industrial activity into land currently identified as rural. The impact of noise, light, air and water pollution has not been modelled. For day, evening and night operations, including reversing alarms, loading, refrigeration or plant operation, truck braking and acceleration, security lighting and cumulative light spill. Industrial zoning should not rely on future development applications to discover whether the interface was unsuitable. As I was told at the Council Community Consultation meeting, don't worry, the developers will sort that out, The Queensland Planning Act, which encompasses the precautionary principle, expressly says that the lack of full scientific certainty is not a reason to delay measures preventing environmental degradation, where serious or irreversible harm is threatened.
00:14:00 Once rural land is rezoned and development expectations crystallized, reversing the course becomes much harder. This is where the precautionary principle is key. As a resident, the question naturally comes, is this just the start of further development that slowly eats away at the character of the area and continues to impact other rural properties? I have two questions for councillors to ponder and ask yourselves honestly. One, would you be willing to take the risk? You want a 20 hectare medium impact industrial complex built next to your family home and have each of you driven up there and seen the land and the surrounding area. We would be happy to take you around. Now councillors, we support sensible and appropriately located employment opportunities for Cooroy and the wider Noosa community.
00:15:00 It is a choice about where development belongs, what intensity is appropriate and whether the evidence is strong enough to justify an irreversible planning change. The community is asking for the same standard council has demanded in other contested planning matters. Demonstrate site suitability. Protect the Lake MacDonald catchment. Understand traffic and environmental impacts and respect the established rural character of the area. Our objection is to rezoning of this particular rural location with limited evidence about negative impacts and that there are no more appropriate alternatives. This evidence should be available now and not that it will be dealt with through later development applications. Here we ask council to follow your own strategic principle applied in the Gem Life case, which the court accepted that new urban developments in the catchment should be avoided
00:16:00 and stated that the issue was determinative and alone warranted refusal of that proposed development. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. We have one submission for public question time. Mayor Wilkie: There's two questions from Miss Joanne Hoey. Joanne, would you like to come to the lectern? Joanne Hoey: Good morning, everyone. I am Joanne Hoey and I'm proudly here to represent the Noosa Hinterland Environmental Protection Agency Incorporated, as many of us are as well. The proposed Holt's Road amendment would introduce medium impact industrial development into an area currently categorised by rural and rural residential land uses and located within an environmentally sensitive catchment. Residents have raised concerns about potential impacts on water quality, drainage, flooding, biodiversity, traffic, noise,
8.1 JOANNE HOEY ¶
00:17:00 and neighbouring properties. Given the scale and the performance of the proposed rezoning, it is important to understand what site-specific technical investigations were completed before Holt's Road was identified. Of particular interest are hydrological, water quality, ecological, geotechnical, and traffic assessments. The community seeks confirmation that these reports exist. That they directly assess the Holt's Road site and that they will be publicly available before any final decision is made. So my question is, what current site-specific expert reports did Council rely on to select 94 and 170 Holt's Road for industrial rezoning?
00:18:00 In particular, hydrology, water quality, drainage, and traffic. And will Council publish those reports in full before making a final decision? Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Ms Howie. Your question will be answered by Director of Environment and Strategy, Kim Rawlings. Director Rawlings: Thanks, Kim. Do you want to share? Excuse me. I'm okay. You should go over there. But I was okay. That's okay, Joanne. Thank you for your question. The subject sites were included in the state's report. By the state, in the urban footprint as part of the 2023 Regional Plan review, specifically for employment and industrial development. Council did not commission standalone site-specific reports for the purpose of determining the proposed rezoning. Council's assessment of the suitability of the site for industrial zoning was informed by a range of existing technical information and mapping, including overlay mapping in the Noosa Plan 2020.
00:19:00 These identified characteristics such as biodiversity, bushfire, landslide, and water quality. And the regional water catchment area. Planning overlays are based on technical analysis undertaken by both state government and council. The proposed environmental management and conservation zone is applied over the constrained areas. Requirements for onsite water-sensitive urban design solutions for stormwater management and reticulated water and effluent disposal are included in the Noosa Plan 2020. SEQ Water have not raised any additional requirements as part of the proposed amendment in relation to development in the water catchment area. Traffic modelling undertaken in 2026 considered the development of the site for employment land as proposed by amendment number 4. This modelling did not identify a requirement for any significant upgrades to the existing local road network surrounding the site or within the road network. The subject sites were not listed on the Environmental Management Contaminated Land Register as of December 23, 2024. And there have been no activities carried out on the properties since that, which would then lead to their inclusion.
00:20:00 The site has been considered suitable for rezoning for industrial purposes as detailed in the amendment. Further detailed assessments would be required at the development assessment stage to ensure any proposed development meets the requirements of the Noosa Plan. Mayor Wilkie: Do you have a second question? Joanne Hoey: Am I able to respond to that? Mayor Wilkie: No, you have a second question. We just have another question. We're going to have an adjournment. Sure. After your second question is answered and we can have a chat. Joanne Hoey: After a transparent comparison with other available or already zoned employment industrial land. Other sites, including land at or near Carpenters Road and existing industrial areas in Cooroy, may provide opportunities with fewer impact on rural character, residential amenity and environmental values. The community would like to understand what alternative sites were examined, what criteria was used,
00:21:00 and how Holts Road compared in relation to infrastructure, road access, servicing, environmental constraints, land availability, cost and compatibility with surrounding uses. A clear comparative assessment would demonstrate whether Holts Road is genuinely the most appropriate location or whether less sensitive alternatives could meet the same planning objectives. So my question is, what comparative assessment was undertaken of alternative industrial employment sites? and why was Holts Road selected over these alternatives? Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Director Lorentson Director Rawlings: Thank you, again for the question. Council is required to ensure that the Noosa plan 2020 continues to meet the future needs and land requirements for Noosha Shire. Council undertook the Noosa Employment Lands Review to assess the future needs for employment facilities.
00:22:00 Thank you to all of you who have contributed to the development of industrial land, as well as deliver outcomes sought by the Noosa Economic Development Strategy 2021 and 2030 to 2030. This study identifies shortfall of median impact industrial land in 2031 and low impact industrial land by 2041. The study considered potential sites for this shortfall to be located, taking into consideration access to major freight routes, natural constraints, being contiguous to existing industrial development and key service infrastructure, and located where it would not result in amenity impacts on more consolidated urban residential zoned land. Industrial zoning can only be applied to land within the urban footprint. Noosa Shire has limited availability of greenfield sites within the urban footprint due to existing natural constraints and development of it. Undeveloped industrial zoned land at Carpenters Road has already been considered in the overall future demand assessment identified in the Employment Land Review, these sites also have constraints that need to be addressed before they are development ready.
00:23:00 No other sites within the existing urban footprint were identified through the Employment Land Review as being suitable to meet the projected land and locational requirements for future industrial land. The Holts Road sites were identified as the preferred location to accommodate this future demand due to location within the urban boundary, proximity to freight routes within an existing interchange to access to the Bruce Highway, being contiguous with the existing industrial land and infrastructure services, being of the size that can deliver on the future demand, not being located near dense residential development land or within a residential zone, and no hazards or constraints that cannot be mitigated or managed as part of any future development. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Director Wilkie. We'll have a 15 minute adjournment now so you can read and discuss questions with Kim or Director Richard MacGillivray who is in charge of planning. Regulation compliance and we're here as well, so we'll reconvene at 10.40, 15 minute adjournment, thank you everyone.
00:41:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Rosemary Baker: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I won't be moving my motion today. As all the councillors and CEO know, I unfortunately missed the deadline to submit the motions to the LGAQ conference in October, so there's no urgency at this moment tied to that deadline. But I do intend to bring this matter back as two separate notices of motion so that each one can be considered on its own merits. As I'll be away in October, I will be lodging a fresh notice in the usual way, writing to the CEO ahead of the November ordinary meeting, so today I'm happy for this item to elapse on that basis. Thank you.
10.1 State Government Advocacy on a Queensland Pilot to Regulate Data Centres - Location, Energy Use and Treated Wastewater Cooling - and State Funding for Council-Delivered Lifeguard Services to Reduce Coastal Drownings ¶
00:42:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Brings us to consideration of Committee Recommendations 11.1.1, Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority, 11.1.2, Frisian Digital Hub Tenancy Agreement, 11.1.3, Biosecurity and Surveillance Program, 11.1.4, General Commission. Committee Recommendations on block. I move. Moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Phillips. All in favour? Carried. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Thank you. Item 12, Ordinary Meeting Reports, Strategic Offset Policy and Biodiversity Offset Guidelines. We have Director Rawlings here to talk us through that. Well, prepared for five minutes, we'll have a bit more information in a six-foot trip across the chain.
11.1 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 8 SEPTEMBER 2026 ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.4 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ENBLOC ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
12.1 Strategic Offset Policy and Biodiversity Offset Guidelines ¶
00:43:00 Thank you. Thank you, of course. Okay. Thank you, Rachel. Would you like to give us an overview of the report, please? Speaker 1: The Biodiversity Offsets Policy Framework applies to two main types of biodiversity offsets. Firstly, offsets generated by Noosa Council activities as required by state and Commonwealth legislation, and secondly, offsets proposals from third-party agencies seeking to deliver biodiversity offsets within Noosa Shire. Biodiversity offsets are already required under a range of Commonwealth and state legislative frameworks, and are increasingly associated with Council infrastructure projects and third-party development proposals. While Council is already involved. In biodiversity offsets, there is no overarching policy or government governance framework that establishes consistent principles, decision-making criteria, and delivery expectations for offset proposals.
00:44:00 In the absence of a formal framework, offset opportunities have historically been considered on a case-by-case basis, resulting in ad hoc approach to assessment, negotiation, and implementation. While this approach has enabled Council to respond to individual proposals, it does not provide clear guidance on how offsets should align with Council's broader environmental objectives, nor does it ensure consistent outcomes for the community. The proposed Biodiversity Offset Framework comprises offset policy and guidelines. It provides a transparent and consistent approach to offset management across the organisation. It provides clear principles. It defines governance and accountability arrangements, and ensures biodiversity offsets contribute to broader strategic outcomes, including Council's commitment to achieving a no-net-loss of ecosystem values and improving ecological resilience across the Shire.
00:45:00 Importantly, the framework creates an opportunity to maximise community benefit from offset investments. Without a policy, offset funding and environmental investment generated from offset investments would not be possible. The proposed framework provides a mechanism to strategically direct investment towards locally identified environmental priorities, helping maintain or retain environmental and economic and community benefits within Noosa, wherever practical. This in turn provides opportunities for local employment and support environmental contractors, consultants and community conservation initiatives. The framework, most importantly, reduces legal, financial and reputational risks by ensuring
00:46:00 offsets are managed consistently, transparently and in accordance with contemporary best practice and overarching regulation and permit approvals. This provides greater certainty for Council, the community and external agencies seeking to partner with Council in the delivery of biodiversity offsets. There is significant benefit for getting this policy in place promptly as there are several current projects and proposed offsets within Council's capital works suite already, in addition to requests from third party agencies, for example TMR and our Beckwins Road project, to use Council sites for offsets. We need a clear internal governance framework to manage offset projects and delivery in Noosa and seek Council support of the recommendations contained within the report. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. A motion for Noosa. A seconder. Councillor Wegener.
00:47:00 Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. So this framework basically sets Council up so we have the guidance that we need, we have guidance to staff on how to process and how to consider when offsetting for our own works, and also gives us the framework by which we can consider for third-party being the transport of main roads. It's a useful document that fills a gap in our framework at the moment, and I suppose the thing that I reiterate, which is reiterated in the report as well, is that we need to make sure that the offset is at the bottom of the mitigation hierarchy. Still the most important thing is to avoid environmental impacts, but if you look at issues, so the current one we're dealing with in designing, we're working with Department of Main Roads on Beckwins Road, there is, has to be some loss of vegetation as a result of the need
00:48:00 to expand that road. So it's just a timely development of a framework that we're working on. It's a framework that will put us in a good stead to have the appropriate governance around these measures. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. From the Council to speak to the motion. Councillor Wynton-Blyson. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to it. First, I want to thank staff, particularly the Environmental Services Manager and the Conservation Environment Team at Rachel and Kin for preparing the policy and guideline, and also for the additional information they gave us. They gave me directly when I raised quite a few questions ahead of today's meeting. So going to just briefly explain why I'm supporting the report today and make clear that firstly, Council is already legally required to deliver biodiversity offsets on capital works and
00:49:00 development projects. This policy doesn't change that. Councillor Wynton-Blyson. It's a very transparent framework for how those obligations are assessed, delivered, monitored and reported instead of managing them ad hoc. Sorry. Instead of managing them ad hoc project by project, which we've done since the resolution, I think, of 2022. Importantly, it doesn't create new costs. I asked staff again about this directly. The policy creates no new obligations beyond the existing policy. It's based on what State and Commonwealth law already require, and where an offset is triggered, its full cost is built into that project's budget as it should be. It also closes, as Councillor Stockwell, a real risk gap. Without a formal policy, offsets can become a scattered set of one-off commitments rather than a managed responsibility for an organisation like Noosa Council.
00:50:00 And what that does, it leads to inconsistent decisions. Unfunded long-term liabilities. Missed compliance deadlines. And lost corporate knowledge as staff move on. The framework addresses that through a required offset delivery plan and monitoring plan for every project and a central register tracking locations, funding and performance over time. It also gives us a clear answer if Council is ever audited or challenged on how the project has managed an offset. Further questions that I had answered. Another one on consultation. Staff have confirmed that this is an internal governance document. It doesn't change development controls or statutory processes. So broad public consultation isn't needed now. Genuine community engagement will still happen at the project level.
00:51:00 I was also glad to hear from staff that they've already started a Register of Council Generations to inform future assessments. In short, the report in front of us formalises an existing obligation at no extra cost with better transparency and stronger risk management. I thank staff again for their work and responsiveness to the many questions that I've posed over the last couple of days. So happy to support the recommendation and a really good discussion. I'm sure there will be great steps forward. Thank you, Council. Councillor Lange. Councillor Phillips: Councillor Phillips. I have a quick question around the third party, just understanding what would happen if this policy wasn't... Councillor Till. Mayor Wilkie: Oh, sorry. Councillor Phillips: It's all on me. Thank you. If the policy wasn't adopted today hypothetically, what actually would Council do with the third
00:52:00 party brushes that is reported? Speaker 1: Through the Chair. Once again, it would be addressed in an ad hoc basis. Parts of the guideline and the policy actually provide for how we deal with those third party agencies in relation to ensuring that we get view of the actual offset management plan before it goes through to the state or federal government for approval to make sure that what we're receiving is something that we can deliver. And it's costed properly. So there's a whole backlog of considerations for being involved in the process. So we would say to a third party agency, yes, we can look at receiving offsets from your development based on our involvement right from the beginning. And at the moment, we don't have that as an outward facing statement.
00:53:00 Just to add to that. Director Rawlings: If we didn't have the policy, we could still negotiate the offset, if that goes more to answering your question. So it's not that we couldn't do that. We've done that. In the workshop, we provided a list of offsets that we're already managing. I guess the point is we're doing that in the absence of a clear strategic governance framework. It's not that we're not doing that appropriately. But there is this provides greater opportunity. Greater benefit. It's more strategic. It's more transparent. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lyons. Mayor Wilkie: Just a question. Sorry, Councillor Wilson, you had your hand up. Speaker 2: That's okay. I can answer that. Councillor Lorentson: I'm not sure who can answer this, but I'm going to reference the council resolution.
00:54:00 I think in 2022, where there was a council decision that we actually developed this policy, it's four years that's lapsed. And I just note that the urgency was mentioned just a little bit earlier that we're acting now given just given specific arrangements that we've got in terms of transport and roads offsets. And referencing Beckmans Road, for example. So that's driving the timing. My question is, why has it taken four years for us to bring this to the table here? And it was a direct direction of council in 2022. Director Rawlings: Sorry, that's a great question, Councillor Lorentson. There's no doubt the preparation of this policy has taken a lot of time.
00:55:00 So it's been there's been. I guess the number of versions, but we've, you know, we've done a lot of work, a lot of research in looking at the best approaches to this, and there's been a lot of iterations and a lot of revisions and reviews. So it's definitely taken a long time. And I think we had our first workshop with you on the draft offset policy maybe two years ago. So it has taken some time. Can I? Justify that it's taken four years? No, but I guess all my point is that there's been a lot of robust consideration going, going into it. It's probably the best answer I can give you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson. Speaker 2: Yeah, it's something I make a comment that. My report goes into quite a lot of detail about what the policy will do.
00:56:00 There isn't actually a lot of detail in the policy. So I know that there there's more in the guidelines, but I just feel like the report makes a lot of promises about what the policy will include, and then it's not really there. There's just the six principles and a lot of definitions, so that there just isn't a lot of process that I can see in the policy. But but yeah, I can see that the guidelines provide more, but yeah, I just felt like it was a bit lacking in detail. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you for your comments. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? I just have a couple more questions if that's okay. Councillor Phillips: Can I try and understand more around risk? If the offset fails after this establishment period of third party funding, then who carries that risk? Director Rawlings: Yeah, go on, there you go. Speaker 1: Who carries risk? So it is a valid risk and a valid thing to consider, absolutely.
00:57:00 The framework requires that environment services staff critically analyse each offset management plan that we engage with, with a third party, including ensuring that all of the appropriate contingencies are embedded into the project budget, including aspects such as force majeure clauses as well that allow us to withdraw from obligations under certain conditions. So the offset framework requires that staff and ensure that that happens, which at the moment, without the offset framework, there isn't that safeguard requiring that those things be considered and approved by the director. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Can the councillors speak to the motion? Councillor Stockwell on the direction to close. Oh, Councillor Finzel, you've got your hand up. Speaker 4: Yes, thank you. Moving forward.
00:58:00 I'm just wanting to understand how reports will come back to council in timely matters to measure the effectiveness of this new strategic policy. Mayor Wilkie: Will there be regular reporting on how it's all going? Director Rawlings: Yeah, I think the resolution includes reporting back in 12 months. So that will be back to counselling in 12 months. We provide other annual reports like the very comprehensive environment strategy implementation monitoring report, which, you know, is 100 plus pages. That report will also would also outline this, this, the outcomes of these policies, it's likely to also be captured in some of our financial reporting, because ultimately, they, they're often a financial contribution. Yes. There's a range of mechanisms.
00:59:00 Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Last question. Last question, just around. So the report sort of goes into a lot of administrative discretion within the framework. I'm wondering how certain things would come back to councillors so we can have sort of oversight over it. Can you explain to me maybe or give me an example of how potentially a length of time would come back to councillors so we can have sort of oversight over it? I think the first part of the question is, you know, what kind of government application would come? Would we still see it? I just, from a governance point of view, I'm just trying to understand what the framework is giving administration and what would still sit or come back to us. Director Rawlings: You can probably both comment, but it would probably vary. It would vary depending on the scale of the project. You know, there are offsets that happen now in council projects that don't come back to council. It's just part of the approvals process.
01:00:00 You know, whether they're state approvals required, federal approvals required, capital infrastructure projects and offsets that are delivered, those things, that level of detail doesn't come back to council. That project's approved as part of the budget and part of the capital works program. And then those issues are just part of delivering the project. So in that instance, that level of detail is unlikely to come back to council. In a project like a third party offset like Beckmans Road, TMR, council is being kept up to date of that, the scale of that project. Something of that scale you would, you know, continuously be informed about. So it really will depend on the scale of the project. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's all for this close. Yeah, so there's some good questions and discussion. And I suppose one thing that was recurring, a bit of a theme, was around costs.
01:01:00 And I was looking. In fact, what this does is actually have the potential to reduce the cost of ratepayers of rebuilds, hacking, canceling land. And this, for example, our most recent purchase of a block under the environment levy was the first one where we consciously made the decision to buy a block of land that did have re-vegetation, rehabilitation to undertake to bring it back to a whole block, to a high standard of ecosystem. And if we accept third party offsets to help do that, we're actually reducing the draw on the environment levy. There is another part of the recommendation that does go to cost. And that's at item D. And that's where it's suggested we're going to get another report in 12 months to look at the potential costs associated with offsetting voluntary matters of local environments and interests. Now, some of us, including me, I'll go straight ahead and put it in the policy and framework right now. But I understand that the majority of people, when we had that discussion, were of the mind that it's best to look at what might be the impact on the budget of doing that.
01:02:00 I think any tree planting is always a benefit to the rate payer, whether it be through biodiversity or whether it's through the drawdown of carbon. And that if we look at the long term, it's going to be hard not to justify replacing any tree we do knock over as a result of our own works. So I recommend the framework. I think the framework, and I did a quick scan through the report. I think a lot of the discussion, alluding to Councillor Wilson's point, was actually referring to the framework, which is the policy and the guideline together. And right, the policy is succinct, but it does bring out those key principles and the nitty gritty in the guideline. And as a framework, I think they make a comprehensive package that will return to the community what is promised in the report. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. We'll put the motion to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Wegener, Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stockwell.
01:03:00 Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson, Councillor Finzel, against? Councillor Phillips. The motion's carried. Now, thank you, Rachel. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We will now move to the financial report on the financial year 2021-2026 against the revised budget for the 26-27 financial year that was adopted on August 20, 2026.
12.2 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT AUGUST 2026 ¶
01:04:00 As this report represents only the first two months of the financial year, caution should be exercised when interpreting variances and emerging trends. Variances continue to be affected by timing, expenditure profiling and carry forward works as well as grant receipts. At 31 August 2026, Council reported a favourable net operating result of approximately 1.6 million. This comprises a favourable operating result variance of 1.3 million and a favourable capital revenue variance of approximately 0.2 million. The favourable position is primarily attributable to higher than anticipated rates and utility charge revenue and investment earnings, together with lower than anticipated operating expenditure. There are no significant financial risks currently identified that are expected to materially impact Council's 26-27 financial result.
01:05:00 Ongoing monitoring will continue through monthly reporting and future budget review processes. I'd like to draw your attention to the following matters detailed in the report. Firstly, operating revenue. At 31 August 2026, Council had received 66.7 million or 40.6% of its full year operating revenue budget of 164.2 million, resulting in a 1 million favourable variance to budget year to date. The main contributors were higher general rates of 169,000, higher waste utility charges of 100,000, lower than anticipated discounts of 91,000 and lower pension rebates of 71,000, as well as investment earnings, which were higher by 182,000 compared to budget due to higher average cash holdings.
01:06:00 Moving to operating expenditure. At 31 August 2026, actual operating expenditure was 27.2%. At 31 August 2026, actual operating expenditure was 17.1 million, or 16.5% of the full year operating expenditure budget of 164.2 million. Operating expenditure was approximately 0.3 million favourable to the year-to-date budget. This was mainly due to employee benefits being $84,000 lower than budget. Materials and services $103,000 below budget. At this stage of the year, expenditure variances are largely influenced by timing and profiling. Further commentary will be provided as expenditure patterns mature and longer term trends can be assessed with greater confidence. Looking at business activities, the overall operating variance comprises approximately 0.9 million from Council's core operating activities and 0.4 million from Council's business activities.
01:07:00 Waste management continues to report a favourable operating position, while holiday parks remain broadly competitive. The overall operating variance is consistent in line with budget expectations. Business activity results include competitive neutrality adjustments and are reported to support transparency under the National Competition Policy requirements. With regards to tourism and economic development investment, Council continues to report investment in tourism and economic development activities. Council continues to report investment in tourism and economic development activities. At 31 August 2026, year-to-date expenditure totaled $1.5 million. $75,000 against a year-to-date budget of $802,000, representing a minor variance of $28,000 below budget. Moving to capital revenue and expenditure. So capital revenue received to 31 August totaled $6.2 million.
01:08:00 This mainly comprised $6.1 million in capital grants and subsidies and $101,000 in cash contributions from developers. The timing of capital grants, subsidies and developer contributions remains dependent on grant conditions, external factors and capital works delivery. Actual capital works expenditure, excluding contributed assets, loan redemption payments and commitments, was $8.4 million. Or 6.8% of Council's $99.7 million full-year capital works program. The broader capital expenditure attachment reports $7.7 million when loan redemption is included. This explains the difference between the capital works figure discussed in the report and the total capital expenditure figure in the financial attachments. Further, future monthly reports will provide...
01:09:00 further project level variance commentary as budgets and delivery profiles are refined. Capital reporting will also incorporate the graphs presented to the capital works executive committee, complementing the separate quarterly capital works reporting by the infrastructure team. Looking at cash management and investment performance. So Council's total cash on hand at 31 August 2026 was $175 million. The total cash on hand at 31 August 2026 was $15.8 million, including $6.7 million held in trust. Council's investments continued to perform above agreed benchmarks. On a rolling 12-month basis, total cash holdings increased by 34.1 million, or 24.1% since September 2025. The cash position will continue to be monitored in the context of carry forward expenditure, capital delivery and future budget reviews.
01:10:00 Bradley Simpson: The Council's investments continued to perform above agreed benchmarks. Speaker 3: Debt claims and arrears outstanding rates and utility charges increased from 7.7 million or six percent of rates levied in July 2026 to 11.7 million or 13.2 percent in August 2026. The increase reflects the July 2026 levy rates, which were due on which were due on the 14 August 2026. The August 2025 compounded more than $ imaginable monthnot. Priority was 12.8% of rates levied. So the month-on-month movement is consistent with Council's established six-month arrears cycle, with arrears increasing after the July and January levy periods and reducing in the following months after that. Financial sustainability, as previously agreed with Council, the relevant measures of financial sustainability
01:11:00 will be reported for the September, December, March, and June quarterly financial results. Accordingly, these measures are not included in the August result. Another item is the removal of credit card surcharge service fees. So this report also seeks Council's approval to amend the 20, 26, 27 fees and charges schedule by removing the 0.55% credit card surcharge service fee from 1st of October, 2026. The amendment is required because changes to national payment regulations mean card surcharges will no longer be permitted from that date. Removing the fee will ensure Council's adopted fees and charges schedule remains current and compliant. The surcharge currently operates as a cost recovery mechanism by offsetting merchant transaction fees incurred by Council.
01:12:00 Removal is not expected to have a material impact on Council's operating position or overall revenue base. Operationally, the change requires the surcharge to be removed from the fees and charges schedule and from relevant payment channels and systems from the 1st of October, 2026. The recommendation provides the formal Council approval required to amend the adopted schedule. In closing, Council remains in a strong and stable financial position as at 31 August, 2026. However, as mentioned, the report reflects only two months of financial activity and remains influenced by timing, carry forwards, grant receipts, and expenditure profiling. Future monthly reports and budget reviews processes will provide greater clarity on underlying operating trends in the future.
01:13:00 Thank you and happy to take any questions. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Quick question, and I did ask in CWE, but I'm just not quite sure of what's got there yet. I know it's monthly reporting, but something that I'd love to know if I can see is like a comparison to August, August, August, like back a few years. And I'm also conscious I don't want to like ask for more reporting because I think in the last year, Director Gatt, the reporting is so much more. But is it possible just to see maybe so I can have oversight around like equitable share across the, more around capital expenditure. So would I ask, do you think I go through CWE for that? Or is it too much to ask for it in the budget? And then I'll ask for more reporting. Speaker 5: Thank you, Councillor Phillips, through the Chair. We could do that either through either mechanism.
01:14:00 That's pretty simple. Doing a comparative trend over will determine or will come back with some options. Is it over a three-year period, over a five-year period? I'll have that discussion with the Director of Infrastructure Services to see what's most appropriate. We could potentially do it in either or forums, or we could do it in both. We could, it wouldn't take much for us to, when we have our next monthly finance report with the Capital Works reporting, we could incorporate something like that. We might test that through the Capital Works Executive first before then we would then bring it through to the ordinary meeting. Councillor Phillips: I'm satisfied. Thank you. Speaker 5: Thank you. Councillor Phillips: I have a couple of questions for the Chair. Councillor Lorentson: Sure. In terms of the rateries, when you're reading the report, it sort of jumps out quite a bit. It's jumped nearly 8 million in a single month from 6% to 13.2%. So the report sort of indicates it's explained because
01:15:00 of the July levy cycle falling in August. Do we have actually a breakdown of how much of the 15.7 is generally overdue versus not yet overdue due for payment? Is that separation, can that be provided? Speaker 5: Thank you, Councillor Morrison. Through the Chair, as the report says, and as you've acknowledged, it is standard that in the August or in this monthly finance report in January, the figures are quite conflated because it includes the actual current levy. We can, I'll have to take that question on notice. I can't specifically give you the break up of what is genuine in terms of arrears compared to the current levy. But as we've previously reported, once a quarter, we actually give you the ageing in arrears analysis rather
01:16:00 than just that high level. And as I have previously committed to you and reported a delay in, but I am happy to report that we are at the stage of where the of where we have commenced our first reminder notices and we'll actually have a better understanding. I have provided councillors with a briefing note in the last month or so around initiating debt collection for some of those very long and outstanding amounts. Councillor Lorentson: Council supports our rate pays who are falling into arrears. due to genuine financial hardships. Has that proportion of hardship related arrears, has that changed over the last 12 months? Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilor Orriston, through the chair. I can't answer that specifically, but we could take that on notice and I can provide that information in between cycles
01:17:00 or I'm happy to report on that in the next ordinary council meeting. Councillor Lorentson: And my last question in terms of all the cash that we're having, holding $175.8 million, explained very clearly by Wayne that, you know, some of it's being locked away for specific purposes. My question is in terms of the interest that we've been in, where does that money go? Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilor Orriston, through the chair. When you say it's going to just say clarification, when you say where does the interest go, what do you mean by that? Councillor Lorentson: So does it get locked away for specific purposes or does it get absorbed into genuine revenue? Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilor Orriston. Through the chair, it just gets absorbed into consolidated revenue. It's just a revenue source that sits there. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councilor Tom. Councillor Wegener: There's that one intangible asset, and there was none last year in the statement of financial position,
01:18:00 what is the intangible asset? Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilor Wegener. Through the chair, I actually don't know the answer to that. I should know the answer, but I don't. So I'll have to take that on notice. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Please don't bring that up yourself. Speaker 5: Okay, thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Through the chair, I did say that was my last question. I do have one more question, and it centers a lot around, a lot of discussion I've had with you now in terms of data centers. My understanding is Noosa Councils, our systems are actually hosted in data centers, and I think located in Sydney. Is that right? Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilor Orriston. Through the chair, our enterprise resource platform or program, as we know, is Tech One.
01:19:00 I cannot give you definitive information on where their data centers are, but they are hosted by Amazon. So I, again, can come back to you. I can take that question on notice. I assume that they are contained in various places in Australia and also overseas. Councillor Lorentson: So my question relates to financial report. Two questions. And I'm thinking what happens when there's a power outage, a cyber attack or a natural disaster. Have we, under our local disaster management plan, have we got a subplan for a disaster recovery plan in that instance? And is that identified on our risk register? Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilor Lawrence-Milk. Mayor Wilkie: Councilor, Director Hadrill, would you like to answer that? No. We'll get to you.
01:20:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm struggling to see the next financial report. I'm sorry. I don't have the query for that question. Councillor Lorentson: Well, let's see how Director Black knows. And just through the Chair, if I can just clarify, Councillor Stockwell, it's in terms of risk to our financial sustainability as a council. I think it's relevant to the report. Well, I'll allow it then. Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilor Lawrence-Milk. So specifically, I'll break my response or my answer to that into a couple of parts. So council, separate to what I would call external disaster recovery, separate to that is our internal systems disaster recovery plan. So that sits as a separate plan framework. It is considered in our strategic risk register with existing controls and mitigation measures. And you would also be aware that in a recently endorsed and adopted resolution
01:21:00 when a new tech one contract that was in confidential as part of that contract negotiations, we certainly shored up the terms and conditions around cybersecurity resilience and also recovery and where various liabilities and response sits, not just with council, but with the software provider. Mayor Wilkie: I think that's adequate. We won't require it. Thank you. Someone care to move the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. I'm happy to move. As normal, it's very informative. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson is seconded. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's very informative. I just want to go down, but I think Wayne as acting manager, you go down in history, finance managers. I don't think anyone in their first report to council has ever suggested that we remove a charge. Speaker 5: Just to clarify, sorry, if I can, through the chair, Wayne's not the acting manager. The manager for finance services is on leave today.
01:22:00 Wayne's acting in the management accounting coordinator role. So just for the life's sake. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, he's taken the responsibility. Yes. Thank you, folks. Our guests will receive the report. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morrison. I just think it's, you know, acknowledge the great work that's done in the finance team. I think we need to, you know, acknowledge good reporting when it's great reporting. So thank you. Thank you. Anyone online? Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell used to close. Okay. Put it to the vote. Those in favour? Speaker 2: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: That's carried. Yes. Unanimously. Confidential items. An extraordinary meeting will be at Castle Chambers in Pelican Street, Tewantin on 10am Thursday the 15th of October, 2026. We declare the meeting closed at 11.23.
14 NEXT MEETING ¶
01:23:00 Thank you, everyone, for your attendance and your contributions. Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Happy birthday, Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Happy birthday. Happy birthday to you. Speaker 2: Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Mayor Wilkie: Happy birthday dear Brian. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday dear Brian. Happy birthday to you. Councillor Wegener: Happy birthday dear Brian.