►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
We
have
six
items
on
the
agenda
today,
two
of
which
are
starred,
and
we
also
have
a
presentation
today
from
our
animal
management
team.
The
agenda
lists
that
presentation
as
being
confidential,
but
that
is
an
error.
It
is
a
non-confidential
update
on
the
the
policy
approach
that
will
be
taken
when
a
new
draft
local
law
is
presented
to
the
governance
and
finance
committee.
A
Soon,
I
think,
maybe
next
round
even
no
october
that'll
be
good,
rydo,
so
councils,
we
have
item
one
to
deal
with.
First
up
being
the
confirmation
of
minutes,
would
someone
like
to
deal
with
that?
That's
moved
by
councillor
o'neill
seconded
by
councillor
gates,
councillors
I'll
put
that
to
a
vote
all
those
in
favor
all
those
against
that
is
carried
councils.
We
have
now
our
conflict
of
interest
declarations
item
I've
received
one
from
councillor
toza,
which,
if
we
turn
our
attention
to
the
screen,
is
displayed
counselor
tozer.
B
B
Yeah,
so
I
I
need
to
declare
that
my
wife
and
I
own
our
property
at
44
moonbeam
parade
major
bar,
which
is
adjacent
to
the
reserve
behind
the
major
bar
cemetery.
It's
referred
to
in
the
report.
I
think
it's
koala
hill
and
is
a
number
of
probably
more
than
100
acres.
It's
quite
a
large
property.
A
And
just
to
just
to
tease
that
out
just
for
clarity,
those
tuning
in
at
home,
so
you
say
that
the
subject
site
is
far
removed
from
your
own
home.
Do
you
imagine
that
you'd
be
impacted
in
any
way
that
you'd
suffer
a
loss
or
stand
to
gain
anything
whatsoever?
No.
A
Okay,
easy
enough
counselors,
so
we
have
a
conflict
declaration
there.
Or
would
someone
like
to
move
a
procedural
motion?
Counselor
caldwell.
D
I
probably
should
have
thought
about
that
before
I
put
my
hand
up,
but
I'm
happy
to
move
that
councillor
taiser
should
participate
in
the
decision
despite
the
conflict,
because
his
contribution
as
the
local
area
counsellor
outweighs
any
perceived
conflict
that
may
arise.
D
So
my
understanding
is
that
moonbeam
is
quite
separated
from
the
actual
cemetery
location
itself.
As
I
understand
is
that
right,
it's
that's
correct.
Technically,
the
reserve
is
adjacent,
but
there
is
a
fair
swathe
of
trees
in
between
and
I
don't
think
that
there's
any
actual
nexus
that
could
be
drawn
between
anything
that
happened
on
the
cemetery
site
to
the
street
to
itself.
B
To
be
clear,
my
property
is
not
depicted
on
any
of
the
maps
used
in
the
it's.
Not
actually
you
can't
see
it.
It's
far
enough
away
for
not
to
be
in
the
maps,
but
is
technically
adjacent,
a
large
reserve
behind
the
cemetery
that
is
proposed
to
not
be
used
for
any
of
the
purposes
discussed
in
this
report.
Yeah.
A
B
A
Council
gates
had
a
question
for
councillor
toza.
Oh.
B
B
A
Great
well
I
mean
I'm
I'm
personally
satisfied
with
that.
If
we
could
just
record
that
counselor
belvin
lumsen
seconded
council
called
wells
procedural
motion,
unless
there
are
any
further
questions,
I
think
we've
we've
adequately
dealt
with
that
I'll,
put
that
to
a
vote
councillors
and
obviously
we'll
have
to
record
the
division
there,
all
those
in
favor
all
those
against
that's
carried
unanimously
by
the
member
councils.
A
A
I'm
I'm
happy
to
move
for
councillor
toaster.
Second,
three
and
four:
any
further
questions
forever
hold
you
peace
no
happy
days
I'll,
put
that
to
a
vote,
all
those
in
favor
all
those
against
that
is
carried
wonderful
counselors.
We
have
item
five
to
deal
with
plainly.
This
has
been
the
subject
of
significant
media
interest
and
I'm
sure
we've
all
had
an
opportunity
to
talk
with
our
communities
on
the
back
of
that
media
interest
to
better
understand
their
views
and
we've
all
plainly
had
an
opportunity
to
read
the
report.
A
We
because
of
a
technical
issue.
I
am
proposing
to
move
a
changed
recommendation
which
would
emit
all
text
after
attachment.
5.2
again,
I'm
happy
to
move
that.
If
I
have
a
seconder,
then
we
can
open
it
up
to
some
questions.
Counselor
caldwell.
D
Sorry,
so
just
to
clarify
that
you
want
to
delete
everything
after
5.2,
that's
right,
okay
and
the
background.
I
just
think-
and
I
might
be
wrong
about
this,
but
I
think
it
would
be
wise
for
us
to
give
some
leeway
in
case.
Something
needs
to
change
between
now
and
when
things
are
signed
off
or
whatever
is
going
to
occur
so
I'd
can
we
could
we
put
something
with
conditions
substantively
in
accordance
with
those
outlined
in
or
something
like
that
I
mean
I'm.
D
A
And
and
we'll
clearly
and
plainly
it's
it's
best
that
we
defer
to
the
to
the
direct
and
relevant
manager.
My
understanding
is
that
in
the
assessment
of
this
permit,
we
are
required
to
make
a
final
decision.
Yeah
director.
G
So
through
the
chair
council
called
the
advice
from
talking
to
shuri
again
this
morning,
is
that
that
part
will
need
to
be
removed
if
we
can
get
any
and
we've
also
spoken
to
the
proponent,
and
they
feel
that
they're
capable
of
actually
being
a
successful
business
within
those
conditions.
So
on
that
basis
we
felt
comfortable
to
leave
them.
I
think,
if
there's
any,
if
we
were
looking
for
any
wiggle
room,
I
guess
we
could
look
at
that
before
full
council,
but
my
understanding
is
that
for
the
moment
we
need
to
remove
that
part.
E
Oh
there
you
go
you've
made
amends.
I
just
had
a
question.
E
On
page
30,
yes,
it
speaks
of
budget
and
funding
considerations
and
suggests
that
we're
unable
to
impose
any
fee-
and
my
question
was
later
in
the
report-
it
talks
about
possibly
maintenance
being
necessary,
and
so
I
wondered
was
there
any
ability
to
provide
some
sort
of
fee
for
maintenance
of
the
area,
and
I
wondered
how
that
impacts
on
the
change
in
number.
One.
A
Sure
yeah,
that
that's
a
terribly
good
question
when
I
had
an
earlier
discussion
with
the
director
about
this
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
I'm
misremembering,
I
I
think,
there's
an
issue
with
the
the
rights
being
non-exclusive
and
there
being
difficulty
in
attributing
impact
or
like
restoration,
with
a
particular
use
or
or
jump
as
it
were
director.
Did
you
have
some
further
thoughts
on
that.
G
Through
youtube
counsellor
and
chair,
I
understand
there's
no
fee
because
there's
no
line
item
for
this
activity
and
there's
but
and
the
maintenance
would
be
really
beat
sweeping
and
so
on.
That's
considered.
E
I
I
understand
that,
but
I
feel
that
if
we
are
going
to
approve
this
after
our
conversation
today
that
there
shouldn't
be
an
additional
impost
on
the
rate
payers
as
a
result
of
the
activity
and
that
whomever,
if
anyone
after
our
discussion
is
granted
the
ability
to
undertake
this
activity,
that
any
costs
associated
with
maintenance
specifically
for
that
activity
should
be
borne
by.
A
H
Is
no
agreement
for
maintenance
of
any
of
the
beach
at
the
the
cairo
site.
A
And
have
we
encountered
any
above
businesses
usual
maintenance.
Thank
so
council
gates.
I
suppose,
where
I'm
sitting
is
that
a
trial
is
going
to
be
the
best
way
of
uncovering
what
the
costs
might
be,
and
it
could
be
that,
like
in
kiera,
there
are
no
real
costs,
understanding.
What
the
costs
may
be
will
then
allow
us
to
defensibly
arrive
at
a
particular
per
jump
charge
which
may
which
we
could
only
probably
constitute
or
give
rise
to
by
amending
our
register
of
fees
and
charges.
Is
that
correct?
A
I
Thanks
chair
just
two
things:
first
thing
I'll:
just
let
over
to
councillor
gates
the
kira
skydiving
gold
coast
skydive,
they
actually
don't,
there's
nothing
that
I
can
actually
see
and
I
live
above
there.
They
jump
in
front
of
me
there's
nothing
that
I
can
see
that
with
beach
maintenance,
I've
never
seen
anything
they
put
their
their
flags
and
their
witches
hats
out.
They
jump
they
collect
their
shoots.
They
go
back
to
a
car,
that's
on
the
street!
There's
no!
I
No
beach,
there's
been
sweeping
normal,
beat
sweeping
that
goes
on,
but
nothing
in
connection
with
the
actual
skydiving
operation
itself.
I
just
did.
I
have
a
question,
though,
on
page
28
it
says
the
use
of
carer
area
is
not
exclusive
to
one
tandem
skydiving
provider
and
would
be
available
to
this
applicant.
Should
they
wish
to
apply,
could
I
just
dump
clarify?
Did
they
need
to
put
in
a
brand
new
application
or,
as
part
of
the
trial
would
would
they
just
need
to
apply
an
operational
permit
for
professional.
G
Chair
it's
to
trial,
a
the
location,
should
another
applicant
make
you
know
present
themselves.
Similarly,
wanting
to
use
that
location,
we
would
consider
that
as
well,
and
it
would
need
to
come
back
to
council
through
this
same.
A
So
so,
there's
no
real
nexus
between
the
two
sites.
This
operator
can
land
at
kira.
It
is
clear,
isn't
it
yep
kira
right?
What
we're
merely
doing
today
is
essentially
to
set
up
a
an
assessment
framework
to
accept
applications
from
any
operator,
but
in
particular
this
one
who's
made
an
unsolicited
proposal
to
begin
operating
at
the
site
council
now.
I
Thanks
chair
and
I
appreciate
that
in
the
report
it
actually
says
that
this
operator
will
be
operating
from
a
helicopter
out
of
sea
world
so
and
and
the
the
operator
at
cura
actually
operates
from
the
airport,
so
it
makes
sense
that
they
would
they
would
want
another
location.
I
I've
actually
had
a
did
receive
a
call
from
the
operator
and
carrier,
and
he
has
no
problem
with
competition
at
all
in
the
city.
He
thinks
all
the
tourism
product
is
a
great
tourism
product
and
he
has
no
problem
with
with
competition
in
the
area
so
which
I
thought
was
a
really
good
thing.
G
F
Had
a
few
concerns,
but
just
while
we're
on
maintenance
I'll
start
with
main
beach
in
my
perspective,
is
quite
different
to
kira
kira's
quite
flat
level
very
wide
with,
whereas
main
beach
is
very
journal,
are
we
likely
to
see
faster
degradation,
more
maintenance
required
because
of
the
difference
in
the
beachscape
there.
G
Through
the
chair,
so
what
we
can
do
is
we
can
check
with
our
colleagues
at
ti
around
any
beach
maintenance
concerns
they
have.
We
have
checked
with
them
once,
but
just
the
basis
of
the
questions
today,
we'll
check
with
them
before
full
council.
If
there's
anything
we
think
is
additional,
we
can
propose
it
before
full
council
on
maintenance.
Okay,
no.
F
No
another
question
was
just
need:
it's
good,
that
the
other
businesses
don't
have
concerns
with
competition,
but
on
page
26
we
talked
about
the
number
of
users
at
the
beach.
The
higher
end
was
almost
a
million
people,
whereas
we
may
only
get
about
24
landings
per
day.
If
weather's
perfect
each
time
it
seems
like
there's
a
lot
of
people
being
potentially
displaced
from
a
busy
beach
to
maybe
service
yeah,
one
business
and
24
people.
I
understand
it's
not
exclusive,
which
might
have
more
landings,
but.
A
I
think
what's
important
there
to
note
counselor
is
that
that
level
of
visitation
like
they're,
not
mutually
exclusive-
and
there
may
be
some
overlap
between
visiting
numbers
and
use
of
the
beach
as
a
arrival
site,
but
accommodating
a
jump
does
not
mean
that
a
million
people
are
displaced.
So
it'd
be
interesting
to
know
what
the
anticipated
displacement
of
visitors
might
be.
F
Yeah
and
then
I
guess
my
last
one
on
the
the
need
is
in
the
usual
process
to
identify
need
go
out
for
tender.
I
this
was
an
unsolicited
application,
but
if
we
have
the
trial,
other
businesses
are
more
than
welcome
to
apply
to
use
that
trial
site
in
the
12
months
as
well.
Is
that
correct
so.
A
From
what
I
understand-
and
I
will
defer
to
the
director
in
a
moment
from
what
I
understand-
is
that
the
current
local
law
permits
an
application
to
council.
So
what's
merely
happened
is
that
an
operator
has
exercised
their
right
to
make
an
application,
and
rather
than
city
offices,
assessing
that
application
city
officers
have
taken
the
step
of
putting
the
application
through
a
committee
and
full
council
process
to
provide
the
maximum
level
of
oversight
in
the
assessment
process.
A
G
Yes,
so
through
the
chair
said,
that's
right,
council
bolster
so
and
the
local
law
allows
someone
to
apply,
which
is
what
they've
done
today,
but
also
it
allows
anyone
else
to
apply
as
well.
So
it's
not
exclusive,
and
it's
obviously
as
we're
saying
in
this
it's
a
trial.
So
this
may
not
be
a
permanent.
A
Option
and
the
local
law,
if
I
recall
it
correctly,
is
quite
interesting
because
it
doesn't
rule
out
commercial
operators
active,
but
now
providing
some
level
of
activation
on
the
beach
what's
ruled
out
and
council
le
castro
is
passionate
in
this
space.
What's
ruled
out
is
the
collection
of
money
or
the
like
a
financial
transaction
occurring
on
the
beach
at.
F
That
side:
okay,
yeah,
okay!
Well,
I
guess
yeah.
My
main
concerns
were
just
it's
a
big
change
for
an
area
which
is
moment
purely
recreational
for
residents
tourists.
It
seems
like
it's
a
need
that
I
don't
think
is
possibly
required
in
that
site
and,
as
I
said,
all
the
others
are
subject
to
results
from
conducting
a
trial
and
we'll
be
able
to
have
more
conclusive
evidence
from
a
trial.
But
yeah
I've
got
concerns
at
the
moment.
Yes,.
A
Dad
and
thank
you
for
your
line
of
questioning
it's
important,
that
we
ask
these
questions
because
the
director's
view
is-
and
I
don't
mean
to
speak
for
it-
this
is
breaking
new
ground
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
interrogate
it
properly.
Council
owen
jones.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
through
to
the
offices,
if
you
could
advise
what
the
actual
draw
zone
equipment
is.
Is
it
just
flags.
C
Thank
you
and
the
number
of
flights
per
day.
My
understanding
is
that's
already
controlled
from
the
seaworld
side,
and
this
doesn't
imagine
any
additional
flights.
Is
that.
G
Through
your
chair,
that's
correct,
the
hours
of
operation
are
already
have
been
agreed
and
approved,
and
they
are
those
that
are
reflected
in
the
conditions.
Thank
you.
C
No
change.
Yesterday
I
was
at
my
office
at
helensvale
and
alan
rickard,
former
councillor
and
part-time
executive.
Save
our
broadwater
asked
me
about
the
interaction
of
the
proposed
trial
with
the
spit
master
plan
and
whether
or
not
it
was
specifically
to
be
avoided,
as
opposed
to
be
pursued
by
council,
and
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
provide
any
insight
into
that.
G
C
Okay,
so,
and
then,
finally,
is
any
consent
required
by
the
queensland
government
in
regards
to
a
trial
on
the
on
the
in
the
bathing
reserve.
J
Thank
you
chair
a
couple
of
questions,
the
actual
location
that
we're
we've
got
in
the
report
here
evaluating
that
whole
area.
So
originally,
when
I
saw
the
proposal
there
was
other
locations
do
we
deem
that
this
is
the
best
location
along
that
stretch,
if
we
did
see
it
fit
for
op
purpose,
considering
where
we're
actually
they're
landing
at
the
moment
is
a
higher
usage
and
there's
a
longer
stretch
along
there
that
have
got
areas
that
aren't
as
many
people
around.
So
that
was
my
concern
of
original
site
couple
of
site
locations.
G
G
Noting
that
there
were
a
number
of
other
sites
considered
further
north,
but
they
were
the
one
that's
actually
been.
The
applications
been
made
for
is
this
particular
site.
Gareth
might
be
able
to
speak
to
you
know,
there's
been
conversations,
so
I'm.
A
Just
going
to
tease
that
question
out
a
little
bit
council
taylor
on
your
behalf,
that's
okay!
So
the
report
contemplates
a
specific
site,
but
the
report
contemplates
a
specific
site.
Councillor.
Taylor
suggests
that
there
were
potentially
other
sites
which
may
have
had
less
impact
on
visitors
and
residents.
A
Can
you
please
explain
how
we
arrived
on
this
site?
Is
it
merely
because
the
applicant
applied
for
this
one
and
it's
with
it's
their
right
to
apply
for
the
site
that
they
seek,
or
is
it
that
we
offered
up
other
sites
that
were
not
suitable
to
them
for
business
reasons
or
that
were
not
otherwise
feasible
or
safe?.
G
Team,
yes,
there
were
a
number
of
through
your
chair
number
of
discussions
for
other
sites
held
and
those
weren't
considered
appropriate
sites.
There
also
were
for
the
sites
north
that
impact
on
conservation
zone
and
have
potential
planning
considerations
that,
and
hence
this
is
the
application
that
we've
received
and
assessed.
A
Okay,
so
just
to
be
perfectly
clear,
because
I
think
it's
important
that
we
be
clear
on
this
point-
the
sites
the
alternative
sites
were
ruled
out
because
they
may
have
triggered
additional
planning
and
approval
requirements
which
were
which
didn't
apply
at
this
particular
site.
And
that
was
the
commercial
decision
by
the
operator
to
pursue
this
site.
Then.
J
Thank
you
and
that's
my
understanding
of
and
my
questioning
is.
Is
it
the
preferred
site
of
a
city
for
a
landing
drop,
not
of
the
actual
applicant?
I
think
I
just
want
to
touch
on
through
the
chair
council
howard
jones
mentioned
in
relation
to
flights.
My
understanding
that
if
someone
did
decide
to
fly
it,
it's
not
going
to
activate
any
additional
flights
for
that
particular
operator
that
that's
currently
got
a
right
to
use
for
that
particular
area,
clarify
that
and
the
only
other
question
is
part
of
the
trial.
J
I
would
understand
that
this
would
be
part
of
community
consultation
as
we
go
through
to
ensure
that
we
come
out
of
patrol
to
see
whether
it
would
work
and
if
it
didn't
work
in
that
particular
location.
What
would
be
this
discussion
of
other
locations
down
the
track.
A
So
I'm
really
that's
a
great
question
and
I'm
interested
in
the
interaction
between
the
consultation
that
counselor
taylor
seeks
and
the
local
law
amendment
process.
G
A
A
Just
on
the
consultation
piece,
though
say
we
get
to
the
end
of
a
trial,
so
we're
potentially
approving
a
trial
for
12
months.
It
takes
quite
a
while
to
then
deal
with
amending
the
local
law.
A
What
do
you
think
a
course
of
action
would
be
between
the
end
of
the
trial
and
the
commencement
of
the
local
law
amendment
process?
Would
there
be
a
discontinuation
of
the
jumps,
or
would
you
imagine
that
we
might
have
or
might
commence
the
local
law
amendment
process
before
the
trial
ends
or,
alternatively,
do
we
have
an
ability
to
extend
the
trial
until
that
process
runs
its
course.
G
Through
your
chair,
I
think
all
things
are
possible.
Given
those
scenarios
depending
on
how
the
activity
is
being
undertaken
and
considerations,
we
could
bring
back
a
paper
earlier
than
proposed,
but
otherwise
or
it
could
be
extended
to
allow
for
the
time
period
to
affect
a
local
law.
Amendment.
A
J
So,
for
me,
I'm
open
in
relation
to
having
the
ability
to
have
skydiving
in
the
particular
area.
My
concern
is
that
the
applicant
is
actually
dictating
the
spot,
we're
landing
at
the
moment.
For
me,
if
we're
bringing
in
a
new
activity,
that's
used
for
all
users,
that's
got
the
ability
to
apply.
If
we
do
approve
it,
I
believe
we
should
be
looking
at
the
best
location
along
that
area
for
the
city,
the
best
interest
of
the
city,
not
the
applicant.
Thank.
I
Thank
you
chair.
Following
on
from
that
question
about
location,
I
do
find
it
interesting
that,
where
we're
not
looking
at
is
an
area
that
is
dictated
by
this
conservation
zone
so
effectively
there's
a
protection
of
trees
dunes
whatever.
So,
that's
why
we're
not
looking
at
that
spot
or
why
the
the
business
owner
is
not
looking
at
that
spot.
But
what
that
does
mean
is
that
they're
then
looking
at
a
spot
which
is
far
closer
to
humans,
it's
far
closer
to
the
main
beach
residents.
I
So
unfortunately,
though,
they
don't
have
a
special
humans
against
helicopter
zone.
So
I
appreciate
that
the
requirements
in
terms
of
sea
world,
in
terms
of
how
many
helicopters
they
can
have
in
the
sky,
isn't
altering
by
this,
but
the
demand
on
them
could
very
well
alter,
and
when
that
was
first
permitted,
it
may
not
have
been
provided
with
the
consideration
that
we
may
have
people
jumping
out
of
the
sky,
very
close
to
main
beach
every
half
an
hour
from
nine
to
five.
That
is
effectively
what
we're
saying
could
happen
with
this.
I
I
don't
know
whether
that
you
know
this.
It
seems
a
little
bit
odd
that
we're
looking
at
that,
rather
than
the
conservation
zone.
So
I
appreciate
there's
not
a
question
in
there.
There
was
going
to
be,
but
I
didn't
get
it.
I
I
think
it
was
just
more
making
that
point
on
that
and
I
suppose
the
the
broader
question
for
me
is
as
a
local
or
as
a
tourist
coming
into
this
city.
Would
it
make
an
impact
on
me
whether
I'm
going
to
go
and
buy
a
ticket
to
jump
out
of
a
helicopter?
A
I
A
A
That's
not
the
case
if
you're
laboring,
under
the
assumption
that
it's
exclusively
for
skydives
or
jumps
from
helicopters,
that's
not
the
case
and
if
you're
laboring,
under
the
assumption
that
this
is
only
for
departures
from
the
central
or
northern
end
of
the
gold
coast.
That's
also
incorrect.
So
I
just
think
that's
really
important,
because
we
want
to
make
sure
that
all
operators
in
the
city
are
dealt
with
fairly.
I
I
One
of
them
at
the
moment
currently
dealing
with
a
show
cause
notice,
so
can't
got
issues
with
council
right
now
and
so
really
the
benefit
there
being
to
sea
world
right
now,
but
based
on
what
you
are
saying,
if
it
isn't
just
for
sea
world,
then
we
really
are
suggesting
by
this
new
zone
that
we
are
creating
a
zoning
place
very
close
to
where
there
are
a
large
group
of
residents
where
we're
saying
that
any
group
can
come
not
just
seaworld
every
half
an
hour
between
9,
30
and
5..
We're.
A
Trialing
we're
not
creating
no
we're
what
we're
proposing
to
do.
At
least
what
I'm
proposing
to
do
with
the
council
of
with
the
support
of
council
caldwell
at
this
stage
is
to
trial
the
appropriateness
of
a
potential
location
that
could
be
included
in
a
future
amendment
to
the
local
law,
which
has
the
protection
of
a
statutory
consultation
process
and
a
state
interest
check
before
it
becomes
a
permanent
site
for
skydive
jumps.
So
it's
a
it's
a
someone
once
said
to
me
in
a
meeting
it's
an
opportunity
to
make
a
fully
informed
and
complete
decision.
A
No
because
the
local
law
amendment
process
is
a
statutory
one
and
council
can
resolve
anything
at
wants,
but
it
needs
to
subject
its
proposed
amendments
to
community
consultation,
and
it
would
be
a
very
steep
mountain
to
climb
for
council
to
go
through
a
statutory
consultation
period
and
then
to
defy
the
will
of
the
community.
I'm
sure
we'll
receive
submissions
from
residents
in
maine,
beach
and
southward
to
defy
that
community
and
then
for
the
state
government
to
defy
them
again
by
signing
off
on
the
amended
law.
A
So
no,
if
anyone's
under
the
assumption,
if
you're
tuning
in
that
council
is
setting
in
in
train
a
process
that
will
most
certainly
end
up
with
a
permanent
site.
That's
incorrect.
A
I
appreciate
that
it's
a
12-month
trial
to
furnish
operators,
the
market
and
the
community
with
enough
information
that
they
can
make
a
fully
informed
submission
into
a
local
law
making
process
to
decide
the
matter
with
permanency.
So
so
we're
not
at
the
stage
of
saying
yep.
This
is
going
to
happen
in
perpetuity.
I
appreciate.
K
I
A
Sorry,
if
sorry,
the
question's
through
the
chair,
so
okay,
let
me
ask
that
question
and
then
because
I've
plainly
got
it
wrong
from
counselor
patterson,
a
letter
asked
directly
through
me
to
either
the
director
or
manager
hers.
But
my
question
is-
and
I
suppose
this
is
a
bit
unfair-
because
from
a
lifestyle
and
community
directorate
we're
not,
we
don't
have
carriage
over
economic
development
matters
right,
but
from
a
city
officer
perspective,
would
we
have
countenanced
opening
up
a
section
of
the
beach
for
this
use?
Do
you
expect.
G
So
through
the
chair
council
patterson,
I
think
we
we
wouldn't
be
looking
at
doing
this
ourselves.
I
think
that's
probably
the
first
point,
but
if
we
were
then
I
think
we
would
have
looked
at
multiple
areas
and
maybe
recommended
you
know
this
one
or
another
one,
I'm
not
sure
we'd
have
to
be
yeah,
we'd,
absolutely
look.
We
did
look
at
a
number
of
areas
in
this
application.
G
I
think
the
other
point
is.
Is
that
the
conditions
that
we've
put
on,
particularly
when
you're
talking
about
you,
know
any
impacts
to
people
they're
pretty
strict
conditions?
So
I
think
you
know
we
are
very
risk.
Adverse
we've
gone
through
a
really
detailed
risk
assessment
and
we
put
on
really
strict
conditions
in
terms
of
that
that
safety
component
that
you
were
talking
about
before.
A
So
if
that
hasn't
answered
your
question-
and
I
got
it
wrong,
please
feel
free
to
ask
it
again.
Oh
I'll,
come
back
to
you,
council,
patterson,
councillor,
hamill
and
then
councillor,
taylor.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
My
question
was
in
regards
to
the
journal
of
vegetation,
noting
that
it's
one
of
the
comments
on
page
28
raised
by
the
city,
I'm
just
wondering
if
there's
the
opportunity
that
if
the
concern
is
that
onlookers
may
stand
up
in
the
sand
dunes
to
take
photos,
I've
watched
family
members
jump
out
of
the
helicopter.
F
If
there's
possibly
part
of
this,
that,
if
they've
got
their
25
meter
jump
zone,
if
there
could
be
a
further
shape
out
from
that
where
they
take
it
upon
themselves,
to
put
signage
up
or
more
barriers
to
encourage
people
not
to
go
on
the
dunes
and
if
they
can
communicate
to
jumpers
families
beforehand
that
that's
not
where
they're
going
to
be.
Can
they
be
part
of
that
to
make
sure
we
don't
have
that
issue
of
our
dunes
getting
disrupted
yeah.
G
Through
your
chair,
yes,
that's
a
good
point
councillor
and
I
am
sure
that
the
operator
would
be
amenable
to
coming
to
some
arrangement
and
that
it
hasn't
been
specified
in
the
conditions
it.
A
So
between
now
and
full
council,
if
there's
an
some
additional
words
that
can
strengthen
what
we'd
like
to
see
happen
and
if
you
wouldn't
mind
circulating
that
to
maybe
all
member
members
of
the
committee
or
council,
I
appreciate
it
because
yeah,
as
you
quite
rightly
say,
those
dunes
are
precious
and
should
be
protected,
yeah
good
catch,
councillor,
taylor.
J
You
may
have
already
dealt
with
this
with
kira's
site,
but
my
question
is:
if
we
did
have
more
than
one
operator
making
use
of
this
particular
site,
how
do
we
manage
that
site
in
relation
to
a
booking
time
and
who
gets
first
right
of
use?
And
I
suppose
the
other
side
of
the
question
is:
if
we
do
go
ahead
and
there's
the
next
12
months
trial,
have
we
got
the
ability
for
someone
else
to
say
we'd
like
to
trial
also
for
the
next
12
months,
or
would
it
only
apply
to
this
particular
operator?
Yep.
A
So
the
the
trial
applies
to
the
site
and
non-exclusively
to
any
operator
lawfully.
We
have
to
consider
any
application
made
to
us,
so
some
other
operator
could
make
an
application
about
some
other
site
and
then
we'd
lawfully
have
to
assess
it
and
and
whether
or
not
they
meet
the
high
thresholds
that
we've
been
able
to
secure
in
our
draft
conditions.
We
won't
know
until
we
receive
that
application
if
at
all,
but
the
booking
question
is
super
interesting
and
I
wonder
whether
we
could
get
a
response
to
that.
Well,.
G
Through
your
chair,
casa,
regulate
the
airspace
so
in
terms
of
how
many
potential
other
operators
could
be
similarly
flying
in
that
airspace
to
make
landing
that,
I
would
be
managed
in
that
way
through
council
for
resolution.
If
another
application
an
applicant
makes
presents
themselves
and
we
bring
that
would
require
us
to
come
back
to
council
and
at
that
same
time,
the
number
of
landings
for
this
operator,
for
example,
could
be
offended.
If
there
was
a
an
appetite
to
you
know:
cap
them
at
its
entirety
and
share
that
amongst
a
number
of
operators.
A
A
Okay,
so
so
in
terms
of
conflict
and
booking
that
provides
me
some
assurance.
Can
I
just
ask
just
related
to
counselor
taylor's
question.
A
My
understanding
was
that
this
application
need
not
have
come
to
committee
and
council
for
consideration,
but
because
of
the
community
interest,
that's
what's
happened
if
we
are
to
receive
similar
applications
in
the
future.
Are
you
saying-
and
maybe
this
is
best
for
the
director-
that
all
similar
applications
will
come
to
council?
A
J
And
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
there's
a
airspace
and
other
regulations
which
we
don't
have
control
of,
we
have
control
of
that
particular
landing
site.
So
my
still
question
would
still
rely
at
some
point
depending
on
what
another
organization
did
is,
if
there's
ability
to
land
in
one
spot,
how
would
we
manage
that?
So
it's
just
a
question
out
there,
because
it
is
our
spot
that
we
do
manage.
J
The
space
is
obviously
someone
else's
and
I
suppose
the
last
question
is
the
site
that's
been
put
down
in
the
report
and
the
conditions
we've
got
and
the
size
of
the
actual
area
there.
What
do
you
believe
the
likelihood
of
how
many
times
they
could
actually
land
during
the
year
with
the
weather
event?
So
and
if
we're
doing
it
as
a
trial,
there's
going
to
be
a
very
good
chance
that
there's
going
to
be
times
where,
under
the
constrict
conditions,
we've
got
that
they
won't
be
able
to
land
there.
J
Will
we
get
a
real
good
trial
period
because
the
likelihood
of
them
not
been
out
of
land
because
of
those
conditions,
yeah.
G
So
through
the
chair,
so
we
looked
at
a
shorter
trial
period
like
a
six-month
trial
period.
Just
because
we
thought
would
be
a
lot
of
questions,
but
I
think
the
the
reason
why
we've
done
12
months
is
to
take
in
those
seasonal
considerations.
Obviously,
when
it's
when
it's
summer
and
when
it's
you
know
better
weather
exactly
you
know,
they'll
be
able
to
get
more
in,
but
obviously
in
their
storm
seasons,
especially
not
going
to
be
able
to
get
it
in.
So
that's
why
we
chose
12
months
in
the
end.
I
I
live
on
the
site
and
it
is,
it
does
depend
on
wind
as
well
so
there'll
be.
It
might
be
a
great
day.
We
might
be
looking
out
everyone's
at
the
beach,
but
they
can't
fly
so
and
that-
and
that
happens
so
I
think
a
12-month
period
is
is-
is
the
right
thing
to
do.
I
just
want
to
also
just
to
councillor
patterson's
comment
about
every
half
an
hour.
I
It
actually
says
here
that,
because
of
the
the
sequence
of
taking
off
landing,
jumping
it's
some
one
skydive
per
hour
between
9
30
and
5.,
so
it's
not
every
half
an
hour
so
that
cuts
down
even
more.
So
I
think
I
can
just
only
talk
about
keira
and
I
know
we've
got
a
wide
beach
at
keira.
It's
away
from
bathers
at
north
caro
surf
club
is
probably
the
the
closest.
But
honestly
it's
a
very
the
gold
coast
guide.
I've
run
a
very
safe,
safe
operation.
I
I
don't
know
much
about
this
particular
company,
but
I
do
know
at
kira.
It
works
very
well
and
it's,
and
can
I
tell
you
the
the
amount
of
people
who
stop
on
the
footpath
and
take
photos
of
the
skydivers?
It's
it's
a
great
advertisement
for
the
coast.
C
Jones,
thank
you,
mr
chair,
on
page
37
of
the
agenda.
There's
item
16
talks
about
the
permanent
holder
must
maintain
a
comprehensive
details
of
any
accidents,
mishaps
or
incidents.
These
reports
must
be
made
available
to
council
on
request.
I
wonder
if
maybe
they
should
be.
The
council
should
be
notified
in
a
timely
fashion
if
there
is
any
of
those
things,
because
I
think
that
that's
the
that's
the
that
public
interface
so
rather
than
hearing
about
it
two
weeks
later
or
in
a
current
affair
or
wherever
you
actually,
we
know
in
advance.
C
In
10,
where
it
talks
about
public
complaints,
I
think
there
should
be
a
fairly
clear
form
that
can
be
completed
that
actually
articulates
what
the
complaint
is,
rather
than
it
being
a
sore
helicopter
and
somebody
jumped
out
of
it
like
what
is
what
is
the
issue
and
how
we're
going
to
manage
that
and
that
that
there'd
be
a
very
clear
contact,
email
address
or
phone
number
for
those
complaints
to
be
made
and
collated.
So
I
don't
think
it's.
C
A
Reminded
of
the
the
bike
share
information
page
on
our
website,
but
we
don't
deal
with
the
complaints
to
do
with
the
bikes,
but
we
do
direct
people
to
the
appropriate
channels
and
provide
them
a
bit
of
a
an
overview.
A
resource
like
that
would
is
that,
along
the
lines
of
what
you're
thinking
counseling.
C
Yeah,
mr
chair,
I
think
that
it
it's
easy
to
say
no
to
something
based
on
these
are
the
things
that
we're
worried
about
but
like.
If
we're
going
to
do
it
for
12
months,
let's
actually
collect
the
information
and
see
if
we
are,
if
there's
genuine
concerns
that
actually
need
to
be
addressed
in
12
months
or
after
six
months
of
operations,
there's
a
clear
pattern
as
to
a
who
the
complaints
are
lodged
by
or
b
what
the
complaints
are
actually
about.
A
G
Through
your
chair,
the
flight
path
is
handled
by
castro
and
there's
we're
advised
there's
no,
no
impact
on
flight
paths
as
a
result.
E
No
no
impact
on
the
local
residential
community.
G
That's
right:
no,
no
impact
expected
on
local
residential
communities.
In
fact,
the
advice
is
that
they
will
travel
further
north
to
get
to
10
000
feet
and
then
come
back
in
so
if
anything,
noise
may
well
be
less
than
currently
from
the
the
joy
flights.
Thank.
A
A
Have
any
further
questions
all
good,
well
councillors,
I'm,
as
I
said,
happy
to
move
that
council
caldwell
you're
happy
to
second
that
still
I'll.
Just
brief
I'll,
just
briefly
open
look
counselors!
I
walked
in
this
room
unconvinced.
A
A
And,
while
we're
being
asked
to
make
this
decision
today
about
this
particular
spot,
what
became
clear
to
me,
having
had
a
chat
with
city
offices,
is
that
this
already
unfolds
in
our
city.
It
already
unfolds
in
a
low
impact
tasteful
way
in
kira,
and
this
trial
gives
us
an
opportunity
to
properly
understand
whether
the
key
that
is
because
the
kira
location
has
certain
attributes
that
main
beach
does
not
or
whether
genuinely
this
can
be
a
low-impact,
spectacular
tourism
offering
that
can
support
visitation
here
on
the
gold
coast.
A
I
think,
having
looked
at
the
conditions
and
with
further
interrogation
from
council
hamel
and
councillor
owen
jones,
I
think
we
really
should
have
every
confidence
that
we're
doing
what
we
can
to
set
up
a
good
framework
to
support
this
trial
and
respect
the
fact
that
this
applicant
has
the
right
to
make
an
application.
It's
not
a
new
right.
They've
always
had
the
right
and,
through
our
assessment
process,
we're
putting
on
some
very
heavy
conditions.
A
If
the
number
of
departures
from
sea
world
and
the
spit
don't
increase,
but
there's
a
demand
for
this
tourism
product,
we
could
be
taking
away
traffic
from
the
residential
facing
side
of
the
spit
and
moving
it
effectively
out
to
sea.
And
overall,
we
could
end
up
with
a
an
improvement
to
residential
amenity,
which
I
think
would
be
good
for
the
economy
good
for
the
locals
and
good
for
the
beach.
A
F
Thanks
joe
I'll,
be
brief,
I
start
by
saying
I
am
comforted
that
it
is
just
a
trial
and
that
we
will
be
furnished
with
a
suite
of
information
to
make
a
more
informed
decision
in
12
months
time,
but
at
this
stage
with
the
information
we've
been
given,
I
don't
believe
there's
real
need
for
this
in
this
location.
F
I
believe
people
come
to
the
gold
coast
for
our
beaches,
our
hinterland,
not
to
go
skydiving
if
they
want
to
go
skydiving,
we've
already
got
a
perfectly
usable
site
down
in
kira
beach,
and
I
just
believe
this
activity
will
be
more
of
an
inconvenience
than
broader
benefit
to
the
city,
but
we'll
be
able
to
make
a
more
informed
decision
in
12
months
time.
Oh.
A
F
D
Okay,
you're
ready,
so
the
first
thing
is
that
whether
or
not
it's
strictly
part
of
this
decision-making
process,
I
did
turn
my
mind
to
the
spit
master
plan,
because
I
think
it's
actually
important
that
we
act
consistently
with
that.
D
Whilst
there's
nothing
that's
specific
about
skydiving,
I
think
the
general
commentary
that's
contained
in
that
document
is
actually
the
objectives
of
the
document
are
met
by
this
type
of
operation,
and
so
specifically
I'll
just
read
you
a
couple
of
portions
of
that
which
say
things
like
this:
a
vibrant
and
diverse
recreation
and
leisure
activities
are
on
offer
throughout
the
day
and
into
the
evening.
Enterprising
businesses
have
the
confidence
to
capitalize
on
the
unique
attributes
and
offerings
of
this
remarkable
setting,
creating
local
job
opportunities
and
prosperity.
D
D
D
I
actually
don't
believe
that
the
risk
of
any
beach
or
journal
damage
from
this
particular
operation
is
any
greater
than
the
usual
wave
action
that
occurs
on
any
given
day,
let
alone
the
people
that
already
recreate
in
that
particular
part
of
the
gold
coast.
So
I
I
don't
see
this
as
being
some
sort
of
phenomenal
risk
to
the
natural
environment.
It
just
is
not,
and
I've
been
one
of
you
know
approximately
300
odd
park
runners
on
occasion
who
run
up
and
down
the
spit
using
the
various
trails.
D
And
then,
finally,
if
we
are
actually
going
to
be
taken
seriously
as
a
competitive
and
interesting
tourism
city,
then
we've
got
to
give
this
kind
of
thing
a
go,
or
we
will
lose
market
share
over
and
over
again
to
more
exciting,
more
progressive,
more
interesting
destinations
say
like
queenstown,
who
are
prepared
to
do
these
things
in
order
to
attract
business
to
their
city.
So
if
we
don't
try
this
and
we've
got
all
the
protections
in
place
for
a
trial
for
a
year,
we
will
no
longer
be
famous
for
fun.
D
We
will
be
boring
and
dull,
and
that
is
not
the
direction
that
we
want
our
city
to
head
in
terms
of
its
tourism
offerings.
So
on
that
basis,
mr
chairman,
I'm
happy
to
support
your
motion
and
hope
that
it
earns
the
support
of
my
colleagues
in
order
to
make
sure
that
we
give
our
city
the
best
opportunity.
E
Thank
you
chairman.
I
think
councillor
caldwell
summed
it
up
pretty
well,
but
I
was
also
going
to
focus
on
the
tourism
opportunities
and
rather
than
famous
for
fun,
I
was
going
to
use
the
analogy
that
we
may
well
become
the
old
coast
rather
than
the
gold
coast.
If
we
don't
keep
ahead
with
our
tourism
product
and
we
have
to
remain
competitive,
we
are
the
capital
of
tourism
in
this
country.
We
need
to
remain
at
the
forefront
and
I
think
we
will
be
well
placed
to
support
this
trial
today.
E
A
Yeah
there
we
go
enough
said
look
councillors
are
I
won't
close
other
than
to
say
that
I
think
council
called
world
made
a
a
great
contribution
there
and
yeah
well
well
said
all
right,
counselors
I'll
I'll,
put
that
to
a
vote.
Then,
unless
there
are
no
I've
closed
so
I'll
put
that
to
a
vote,
then
all
those
in
favor
all
those
against
and
council.
Would
you
like
to
be
noted?
A
A
We
should
more
or
less
be
across
this
having
contemplated
the
original
three-point
plan,
the
extensive
report-
and
I
know,
there's
been
some
commentary
and
discussion
on
it.
Council
gates.
I
know,
based
on
some
of
the
media
coverage.
You've,
put
some
questions
or
intend
to
put
questions
to
city
offices.
Is
that
something
happening
in
the
background?
Or
would
you
like.
E
E
Well,
if
the
officers
are
happy
to
answer
me
that
that's
fine,
I'm
sure.
E
L
Richard
sure,
great,
in
a
lot
of
cases,
the
upper
camera
site
was
actually
the
first
site.
We
actually
broke
ground
on
the
types
of
strategies
that
we're
actually
now
progressing
through.
We
did
an
expansion
of
the
upper
coomera
site,
probably
in
around
2016,
which
we
created
an
extra
360
plots
at
that
time.
L
L
The
site
at
the
rear
of
of
the
apakuma
cemetery
is
heavily
vegetated,
and
there
is
also
you
know,
concerns
or
awesome
suggestions
that
there
is
some
significance
of
indigenous
heritage
there
at
that
site.
So
certainly,
at
our
preliminary
point
of
view,
capacity
is
not
driving
us
to
look
at
intervention
strategy
at
this
point
in
time.
L
If
we
were
to
do
that,
we
would
need
to
do
quite
detailed
ecological
assessments
and
also
heritage
assessments
to
actually
determine
whether
or
not
progressing
further
into
that
site
through
the
removal,
trees
or
other
potential
aspects
of
the
site
at
a
later
stage.
So
at
this
stage
we're
parking
it
and
we
need
to
go
through
those
detailed
assessments
at
a
later
stage.
If
we
did
have
a
desire
to
progress
through
with
a
further
expansion
of
that
site,.
A
E
L
It
certainly
for
you,
mr
chair,
that's
always
been
part
of
the
three-point
strategy
we
generate
wherever
we
possibly
can
expand
sites
within
the
footprints.
If
that
is
available
to
us
and
only
look
to
the
more
expensive
and
more
difficult
situation
of
having
to
acquire
new
sites
and
develop
those
from
scratch.
As
part
of
that
long-term
need
at
this
stage,
there's
not
the
drivers
for
us
to
go
into
the
detail,
requirements
that
we
believe
and
preempt.
L
That
would
have
difficulties
at
the
uppercumra
site
in
achieving
the
types
of
outcomes
of
expanding
and
creating
additional
capacity,
just
because
of
the
significant
nature
of
the
vegetated
site,
the
nature
of
that
vegetation
and
the
potential
that
there
are
existing
heritage
issues
there.
So
one
that
we
could
do
some
further
work
on,
but
is
certainly
not
something
that
is
driving
us
for
the
immediate
intervention.
So,
okay.
A
Sorry,
sorry
and
I'm
going
to
ask
you
a
question.
My
sense
of
your
question
is
that
you
weren't
necessarily
talking
about
constraints
in
upper
camera.
You
were
wondering
whether
at
other
locations,
where
we've
got
even
more
severe
constraints,
whether
we
were
offering
locals
the
opportunity
to
look
at
other
locations.
Is
that
correct,
correct
so
so
say,
for
instance,
there's
a
cemetery
with
only
with
dwindling
supply,
our
city
officers
working
with
families
to
show
them
other
options
where
there
may
be
more
ground.
A
L
For
you,
mr
chair,
and
please
note
that
mr
ben
kelly
is
currently
overseeing
the
cemetery's
team
is
at
the
back
of
the
room
and
he
may
jump
in
and
add
a
little
bit
more
weight
to
this.
If
I
don't
get
it
fully
correct.
L
So
part
of
what
we
are
looking
through,
including
considerations
of
the
review
of
the
local
law,
is
capacity
for
the
city
to
look
at
a
buy-back
process
which
would
be
at
a
higher
percentage
of
the
existing
rate
or
for
us
to
purchase
it
back
at
the
existing
rate
as
per
the
fees
and
charges.
Yeah
interesting.
E
Please
I
I
think
I
can
also
ask
this
in
open,
because
it's
been
the
subject
of
consultation
and
and
discussion
publicly
previously
and
that's
when
exit
54
was
expanded
and
the
state
swapped
us
some
additional
land
at
pimpama
for
the
land
that
they
took
for
the
exit
54
upgrade.
E
H
Through
the
chair,
yeah
we've
investigated
that
site
quite
thoroughly
and
we
had
an
ecological
assessment
study
done
on
the
whole
site,
so
that
identified
particular
areas
with
high
ecological
value
just
with
regards
to
the
existing
vegetation.
So
the
highest
value
areas
are
actually
at
the
northern
end
of
that
site,
just
adjacent
to
the
existing
peppermill
cemetery.
H
The
best
areas
for
a
cemetery
expansion
are
at
the
southern
end,
but
the
biggest
constraint
that's
existing
at
that
southern
end
is
a
piece
of
land
that
transects
the
entire
site,
which
is
owned
by
department
of
maine
roads
and
so
until
well.
If
we
were
able
to
get
that
piece
of
land,
then
we
could
have
further
looks
at
whether
or
not
a
cemetery
could
be
developed,
but
at
the
moment
it
appears
to
be
not
feasible.
As
long
as
that's.
L
There
yeah
further
to
that,
for
you,
mr
chair.
The
site,
as
we
know,
was
the
former
pimperman
springs
golf
club,
so
there
are
still
elements
of
the
former
golf
course
that
are
semi-cleared
and
part
of
what
council
has
supported
us
in
the
past.
B
Thank
you.
My
question
through
you
to
the
officers
is
just
in
relation
to
the
adoption
of
the
four-year
capital
works
budget.
That's
in
the
public
domain.
It
talks
about
on
page
59
the
allocations.
Having
read
the
report
and
gone
through
it
with
some
detail.
It
occurs
to
me
only
item,
seven
in
the
proposed
recommendation.
B
Is
that
correct,
so
items
one
to
six
in
the
recommendation.
It
seems
like
all
that
is
captured
in
section
seven
of
the
report
on
page
59
and
it's
only
section,
seven,
the
particulars
of
section,
seven,
the
only
thing
that
seems
to
be
unfunded
into
the
future.
Everything
that
is
talked
about
in
this
report
is
effectively
fully
funded.
L
But
with
both
a
northern
possible
northern
site
and
no
possible
silence
out
are
at
this
stage
not
identified
and
within
the
current
10-year
plan,
the
work
that
needs
to
be
done
is
to
identify
and
secure
a
potential
site.
The
actual
need
is
much
longer
term.
When
we've
actually
gone
through
the
process
of
determining
a
possible
local
site,
we
will
come
back
to
council
as
we
do
with
other
land
acquisitions,
and
then
that
will
start
to
provide
a
budget
footprint
for
supporting
or
otherwise
you
know
the
direction
of
council.
B
F
L
F
The
second
question
was
in
regards
to
albertan
cemetery,
noting
that
it
sits
on
the
boundary
of
a
big
chunk
of
land.
That's
currently
marked
in
elgip
as
possible
district
sports
fields
and
open
green
space
in
the
future.
F
L
Through
you,
mr
chair,
the
algebra
itself
does
not
provide
a
mechanism
funding
wise
or
to
support
cemetery
use,
not
to
say
that
if
the
overall
population
parson
of
land
has
identified
poor
requirement
that
we
could
not
be
part
of
that
conversation,
but
any
costs
associated
with
that
or
any
value
so
attributed
to
that
would
need
to
be
funded
through
other
sources
outside
of
elgip.
I
think
you
should
get
that
one
on
the
mic,
mr
chair,
that.
F
That's
fine
and
mr
chair
just
a
third
and
final
question,
because
it
was
one
raised
with
me
by
some
locals
in
the
area
was.
Could
you
just
confirm
that
pimpama
island
cemetery
is
not
a
city-run
cemetery
in
that
it
doesn't
form
part
of
the
overall
cemetery
regeneration
plan.
L
F
Ministry,
if
I
could,
if
there
was
an
interest
from
the
current
trustees
of
that
cemetery
in
pay,
maybe
not
running
it
in
the
future,
would
the
symmetra
city
be
interested
in
looking
that
opportunity
right.
L
J
E
Thanks
chairman,
just
one
more
comment
or
half
a
question:
half
a
comment
item
seven
that
councillor
toza
referred
to.
Are
the
officers
aware
of
land
or
are
they
seeking
for
us?
If
we
are
aware
of
a
parcel
of
land
that
may
be
suitable
to
make
that
suggestion
to
you,
there's
one
parcel
of
land
that
I'm
aware
of-
and
I
know
councillor
owen
jones
is
too
that's
in
private
ownership,
but
it
was
purchased.
E
I
think
before
the
last
city
plan
was
introduced
and
the
land
in
question
is
in
the
interurban
break,
which
renders
it
difficult
for
development
and
the
owner
of
the
land
has
in
the
past.
Visited
me
with
some
suggestions
about
its
development
and
quite
clearly
whatever
he
had
proposed,
is
not
possible
any
longer,
and
I
think
the
land
was
most
recently
used
as
a
storage
area
for
some
light
rail
works
or
something
of
that
nature.
So
you
know
land
like
that.
E
That
may
be
a
possibility
that
the
use
has
changed,
and
perhaps
we
should
just
forward
any
information
through
to
you
for
possible
contact
to
see
if
there's
any
interest
in
selling.
L
C
So
that's
just
in
regards
to
the
potential
of
the
city
acquiring
a
site
to
expand,
I'm
going
to
say
the
business
unit,
but
that's
also
there's
nothing
that
necessarily
prevents
a
private
owner,
as
we've
seen
throughout
the
city
or
also
being
in
the
business
of
grace
yeah.
So
it
may
very
well
be
just
that
conversation
is
enough
to
trigger
somebody
wanting
to
do
that,
be
in
the
business
that
the
council
doesn't
necessarily
have
to.
C
A
The
planning
considerations
around
a
cemetery,
because
really
you
you
wouldn't
want
a
change
of
use,
application
after
25
years
and
completely
offline.
I
suppose
I
wouldn't
mind
a
call
from
a
city
officer
just
around
that
particular
public
policy
issue.
Just
generally,
you
know
if
there
was
a
way
of
supporting
private
cemeteries.
A
A
You
know:
that's
that's
how
they
manage
their
their
constraints
with
land.
You
know
it's
yeah,
so
it's
full-on
all
right
there
you
go
counselors
with
any
questions
that
you'd
like
to
put
in
clothes
that
might
have
dealt
with
confidential
matters.
Now.
Would
someone
like
to
move
the
item?
Counselor
ptosis
seconded
councillor,
gates
councils,
any
speakers
against
no
councillor
toaster.
Would
you
like
to
speak
to
the
item.
B
Thank
you,
council,
forester.
The
this
matter
is,
whilst
there's
been
a
few
puns
here
and
there,
and
even
just
now
talking
about
sicily,
you
know
it
can
it
can
be.
Sometimes
we
deal
with
difficult
matters
by
making
a
lot
of
them
a
little
bit
and
frankly,
this
is
actually
a
really
important
activity
of
council,
a
core
business
of
council
that
enables
people
to
have
some
certainty
about
remembering
their
loved
ones.
B
B
So
I
know
the
major
bar
cemetery
has
been
around
for
almost
100
years
now,
and
you
know
he's
a
it's
a
place
of
reverence,
but
it's
also
a
place
where
family
members
of
you
know
all
sorts
of
members
of
our
community
are
remembered,
and
I
hope
you
know
hope
the
council
has
support
this
idea
of
a
strategically
planning
for
us
to
move
forward,
which
is
exactly
what
this
report
proposes
to
do.
B
A
Council
gates,
would
you
like
to
anything
okay
council's
speakers
against
no
counselor
jose?
Did
you
wish
to
close.
A
There
you
go,
let's
I'm
resisting
the
urge
counselors
I'll,
put
that
to
a
vote,
all
those
in
favor
all
those
against,
and
that
was
carried
unanimously.
I'm
assuming
then
that
captures
the
fact
that
councillor
toza
voted
in
the
affirmative
right
yeah.
A
Sorry
do
we
need
to
note
it:
okay,
yeah!
If
we
could
note,
then
that
counselor
tells
the
voted
in
the
affirmative.
Great
awesome,
all
right!
Well,
counselors!
We,
the
only
other
item
we
have
on
the
agenda
today-
is
a
presentation
again
just
to
bring
you
up
to
speed.
Council
has
resolved
to
review
its
animal
management
laws
predominantly
to
respond
to
you
know,
changes
in
state
legislation,
but
also
to
harmonize
our
approach
with
that
of
other
adjacent
local
governments.
A
It's
been
some
time
since
our
rules
have
been
reviewed
and
other
local
governments
have
moved
in
the
space
of
say
koala
protection,
whereas
we
haven't
yet
so.
The
purpose
of
this
presentation
is
for
us,
as
a
committee
who
have
had
carriage
over
this
process
up
until
this
point
is
to
understand
where
city
offices
have
landed
in
their
preferred
approach
to
change
and
as
we
flagged
earlier
on
in
the
meeting,
this
will
ultimately
be
decided
by
the
governance,
administration
and
finance
committee
who
have
carriage
over
local
law.
A
Amendment
we'll
run
through
the
presentation
here:
go
for
it,
council,
medicine,
we'll
run
through
the
presentation
and
then
before
taking
questions
I'll
just
flag.
A
couple
of
outstanding
questions
that
I
have
having
met
with
city
offices,
council
called
go
for
your
coffee
right
here.
We.
K
K
Good
afternoon
so
the
as
has
been
introduced
by
a
chair,
the
purposes
of
this
presentation
today,
is
to
outline
the
amendments
being
proposed
in
an
upcoming,
not.
H
G
Just
while
we're
waiting
counsellors
could
I
I'm
not
sure
whether
kylie
sergei
got
introduced,
kylie's
our
senior
policy
officer
in
health
and
regulatory
services,
so.
K
The
report
was
adopted
at
that
time
and
since
then,
we've
undertaken
the
process
of
reviewing
and
consulting
with
internal
stakeholders,
also
engaging
solicitors
to
draft
the
laws
has
been
undertaken
at
this
point.
K
There
are
many
amendments
being
proposed
as
part
of
this
report.
However,
a
significant
number
are
just
administrative
in
nature,
including,
for
example,
we've
aligned
our
local
laws,
with
changes
to
the
state
laws
that
have
been
made
in
recent
years.
I
won't
be
going
through
all
of
these
changes
in
this
presentation,
but
I
will
be
outlining
the
key
or
material
changes
that
we're
proposing
in
the
laws.
K
K
These
matters
again
were
considered
in
detail
in
the
2019
report,
and
a
new
set
of
criteria
was
proposed
as
part
of
this
report,
and
it
was
supported
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
apologize
here
for
this
busy
slide.
I
have
included
here
in
this
slide
the
full
text
of
the
current
law
and
the
proposed
law.
K
But
to
summarise
under
the
current
law,
the
focus
is
on
there
having
been
a
certain
number
of
complaints
being
received.
There
is
no
criteria
currently
relating
to
how
often
the
noise
occurs
or
for
what
length
of
time
in
a
proposed
law.
The
criteria
focuses
on
the
noise
exceeding
a
specified
duration
of
time
dependent
on
whether
it
is
daytime
or
night
time.
K
For
example,
the
noise
could
be
something
that's
causing
interference
to
a
neighbor,
but
if
it
only
happens
a
couple
of
times
a
day
for
a
very
short
period,
it
would
not
be
a
noise
nuisance
under
the
proposed
criteria.
A
dog
that
barks
very
loudly
when
someone
comes
to
the
front
door
of
a
residence
would
be
an
example
of
this.
K
Having
been
a
certain
number
of
complaints
being
received
in
the
area
in
reviewing
animal
noise
laws
in
our
region,
it
was
noted
that
brisbane,
redlands
and
logan
all
are
currently
using
the
duration
criteria
that
we're
proposing
the
difference
being
that
they
do
not
have
to
satisfy
both
duration
and
interference.
K
So,
under
the
proposed
laws
permits
will
no
longer
be
required
for
animal
carers,
bees,
geese
ducks
and
turkeys,
or
rats
and
mice.
We
are
also
proposing
to
remove
permit
requirements
for
animal
breeders,
kennels
pet
shops
and
guard
dogs,
all
of
which
are
either
subject
to
the
requirements
of
other
state
laws
or
are
operating
under
planning
approval
conditions.
K
This
has
resulted
in
a
minor
increase
in
the
number
of
pigeons
from
two
to
four
that
can
be
kept
without
a
permit
on
small
blocks
and
multi-residential
premises
before
a
permit's
required
in
relation
to
prohibitions.
It
is
proposed
that
an
exemption
be
provided
for
keeping
horses
on
land
under
2
000
square
metres
in
the
bundle
equestrian
precinct.
K
This
change
corrects
an
oversight
in
the
current
laws
which
failed
to
acknowledge
this
being
an
intended
land
use
in
this
area.
The
change
will
make
lawful
the
current
land
use
in
this
precinct
and
will
enable
permits
to
be
issued
by
issuing
permits.
It
will
mean
that
the
intensive
land
use
can
be
monitored
more
proactively
for
potential
environmental
and
public
health
impacts.
K
Other
prohibitions
being
removed
include
keeping
more
than
30
geese
ducks
and
turkeys
on
land
greater
than
one
acre.
When
reviewing
other
local
government
areas.
We
noted
that
the
animal
management
laws
that
have
been
reviewed
more
recently
are
generally
adopting
a
red
tape,
reduction
approach,
brisbane
recently
reviewed
their
laws
and
applied
a
similar
approach
to
what
we
are
proposing.
They
removed
the
requirements
for
permits
for
pet
shops,
guard
dogs,
breeding
and
some
other
permit
types
as
well.
K
Oh
I've
gone
too
far
in
relation
to
hens
under
the
current
laws.
There
is
an
absolute
prohibition
on
keeping
any
hens
on
allotments
smaller
than
600
square
metres,
while
it
is
likely
that
most
allotments
of
this
size
are
not
suitable
for
keeping
hens,
it
is
proposed
to
remove
this
prohibition
and
instead
apply
a
minimum
area
of
land
that
must
be
provided
for
each
hen,
that's
being
kept
as
an
example.
K
K
The
next
set
of
changes
relate
to
enclosures.
There
are
three
main
changes
proposed
in
relation
to
animal
enclosures.
The
first
is
in
relation
to
preventing
animals
from
being
able
to
attack
or
cause
fear
from
within
their
enclosure.
K
The
other
change
is
requirements
for
horse
enclosures,
so
the
first
change
is
proposed
due
to
a
number
of
incidents
that
have
occurred
where
dogs
have
attacked
or
caused
worry
by
reaching
over
or
through
gaps
in
fences,
while
the
animal
is
still
contained,
it
has
not
been
prevented
from
causing
harm
or
worrying
passes
by
incidents.
Over
recent
years
include
dogs
attacking
other
dogs
in
neighbouring
allotments
and
dogs
biting
or
worrying
posties,
as
they're
trying
to
deliver
mail
into
the
mailbox.
K
The
proposed
change
would
to
the
law
would
enable
officers
in
cases
where
an
issue
has
been
identified
to
get
owners
to
modify
their
fence.
This
might
involve
lining
gaps
in
the
fence
with
wire
mesh
or
another
material
or
potentially
raising
the
height
of
a
fence
as
well
relation
to
electronic
containment.
K
Concerns
have
been
raised
due
to
the
fact
that
these
systems
do
not
always
work
for
certain
breeds
of
dog.
They
do
not
work
when
there
are
power
failures
and
also
that
visitors
or
other
animals
may
enter
the
dog
enclosure
unknowingly
under
the
proposed
change.
Anyone
using
electronic
containment
currently
and
solely
would
need
to
install
compliant
fencing.
K
K
The
third
change
in
relation
to
enclosures
is
is
in
relation
to
horses.
Currently,
there
are
specific
enclosure
requirements
for
horse
owners
such
that
all
horses
are
to
be
prevented
from
reaching,
over
or
through
fences,
standard,
post
and
rail.
Fencing
is
1200,
millimeters
high
and
therefore
does
not
meet
this
requirement.
K
K
K
K
K
K
Animals
when
reviewing
the
current
law
against
other
local
governments
in
the
region
and
against
the
model
local
law,
it
was
noted
that
our
fines
are
significantly
lower
half
that,
in
fact,
of
all
others
for
key
offences.
The
fine
amounts
currently
applied
on
the
gold
coast
are
not
considered
to
be
an
effective
deterrent
or
reflect
the
high-risk
nature
of
some
of
these
offences.
K
Those
figures
may
have
been
amended
since
the,
since
that
was
sent
out
with
the
increase
to
the
penalty
units
that
took
place
on
the
1st
of
july.
K
Other
enforcement
tools
are
considered
to
be
more
effective.
Currently,
the
only
enforcement
tool
available
to
officers
for
addressing
owners
who
fail
to
register
or
microchip
their
animals
is
a
fine
issuing.
A
fine
to
someone
who
has
possibly
failed
to
register
their
animal
due
to
the
associated
cost
is,
in
many
cases
ineffective
after
having
issued
one
fine
and
the
owner
still
has
not
registered
their
animal.
The
only
option
is
to
issue
further
fines.
K
If
the
owners
still
fail
to
register
or
microchip
the
animal
after
having
been
issued
a
compliance
notice,
then
the
officer
has
the
option
to
take
the
matter
before
the
court,
and
ultimately,
this
may
result
in
seizure
of
the
animal
in
circumstances
where
issuing
a
fine
has
not
resulted
in
compliance.
The
option
to
escalate
the
enforcement
with
potential
for
a
far
more
significant
penalty
is
much
more
is
considered
much
more
likely
to
achieve
the
outcome.
That's
required.
K
Relation
to
koala
protection,
these
amendments,
as
as
mentioned
earlier,
were
detailed
in
full
in
the
adopted
report
that
went
to
council
in
2020.
K
Currently,
our
local
laws
do
not
have
any
requirements
in
them
that
protect
koalas
from
dogs
under
the
proposed
laws.
There
are
obligations
for
all
dog
owners
to
protect
a
koala,
entering
the
property
from
being
attacked
by
a
dog
if
they
become
aware
of
it
being
there
within
a
koala
area,
which
is
a
significant
proportion
of
our
city.
There
are
additional
requirements
for
dog
owners
to
comply
with.
If
someone
resides
at
the
premises,
they
have
two
options
of
how
they
can
comply.
K
If
no
one
resides
at
the
premises,
then
they
must
comply
with
the
first
option.
There
are
additional
requirements
for
dog
owners
in
koala
areas
on
larger
allotments.
In
their
case
during
the
night,
the
dog
must
be
confined
to
a
koala
proof
area,
for
example,
inside
the
house
or
in
a
dog
run
all
must
be
tethered.
These
requirements
are
aimed
at
preventing
a
koala
coming
under
attack
on
a
part
of
the
property
where
the
owner
cannot
hear
or
see
that
the
attack
is
occurring.
K
A
Right
so
thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation,
I'm
also
cognizant
of
the
time,
so
I'm
sure
we'll
knock
out
these
questions
quickly.
I'm
just
going
to
repeat
a
few
of
the
questions
that
I
put
to
offices
during
our
earlier
discussions
for
the
benefit
of
the
committee,
then
we'll
go
to
councillor
toza
and
councillor
gates
thought
maybe
a
good
opportunity
to
flesh
out
some
issues
and
then
counselor
young.
A
So
I
want
to
turn
first
to
the
issue
of
hens,
all
right
so
presently
there's
a
prohibition
on
the
keeping
of
hands
on
any
lot
with
an
area
less
than
600
square
meters.
I
think
quite
sensibly.
A
City
officers
want
to
take
a
look
at
the
usable
hen
area
as
it
were,
this
150
square
meter
test.
I
suppose
my
concern
is
this:
just
because
a
lot
might
have
a
hundred
and
fifty
square
meters
of
free
area
doesn't
mean
that
that
area
is
suitable
for
the
keeping
of
a
hen.
So,
for
example,
you
might
have
a
house
with
a
a
timber
deck
around
a
pool
taking
up
much
of
the
150
square
meters
and
that's
not
necessarily
the
best
place
for
a
hen.
K
The
wording
in
the
proposed
law
is
the
land
available
to
the
animals,
so
it
would
be
their
enclosure
or
if
it
was,
if
the
hens
were
without
enclosure,
it
would
be
that
that
total
area
within
within
that
yard
of
that
property.
K
A
So
my
in
my
experience
as
limited
as
it
is-
and
you
know
I
grew
up
with
chickens
around
the
house-
I
think
my
grandmother
resuscitated
one
that
fell
in
the
pool.
Like
you
know,
we
were
a
chicken,
loving
family,
but
it's
another
story.
It's
a
great
story.
She
gave
it
mouth-to-mouth
resuscitation
after
the
chicken
had
fallen
in
the
pool
and
she
brought
it
back
to
life.
It's
it's
a
treasured
part
of
our
family
law
but
yeah.
A
I'm
not
sure
if
any
of
you
have
ever
had
issues
with
people
complaining
about
even
dog
feces
from
coming
from
their
neighbors,
so
their
neighbor's
property
and
washing
in
so
sort
of
washing
into
theirs.
So
do
you
think
there's
an
approach
that
we
can
take
if
we
are
to
relax
the
keeping
of
hens
that
really
talk
to
the
available
and
appropriate
space,
rather
than
just
all
space.
G
Through
your
chair
under
the
proposed
amendments,
we're
removing
the
permit,
so
there
would
be
an
entitlement
to
in
accordance
with
the
requirements,
the
pens
as
long
as
they
met
the
boundary
requirements,
but
on
complaint
we
would
inspect.
If
there
were
issues
we
would
take
action.
Of
course,
too.
Yeah.
A
If
that's
all
right,
if
we've
got
the
ability
yeah
so
that
yeah,
so
when
a
dog
is
off
lead
absolutely
we
should
that
dog
should
have
to
respond
to
voice
commands
and
must
not
threaten
attack
other
animals
or
people.
But
why
wouldn't?
We
also
include
that
test
in
the
unleash
scenario,
given
that
that
lead
or
that
leash
can
be
of
effectively
unlimited
length.
J
A
And
yeah
and
I'm
not
trying
to
be
facetious
or
anything,
but
can
you
see
maybe,
from
my
perspective
looking
at
that
slide?
It
suggests
that
that
voice,
command
and
attack
is
doesn't
form
part
of
the
test
and
the
approp
and
the
proposed
law
for
unleash.
Yes,.
A
And
on
the
yeah
on
the
issue
of
the
pigeons,
so
I
suppose
the
aggregation
of
species
I
totally
get
because
it
can
become
administratively
burdensome
to
deal
with
all
manner
of
permits
for
birds
and
all
the
rest.
But.
A
Yeah
we
used
to
squabble
anyway.
The
noise
from
a
pigeon
is
quite
constant.
I
like
a
budgie,
would
be
intermittent,
but
yeah
yeah.
So
so
I
I
suppose
my
first
question
is:
are
officers
reasonably
satisfied
that
a
pigeon
which
produces
continual
background
noise
can
reasonably
be
kept
in
numbers
of
four
up
to
four
without
a
permit.
J
Yes
councillor,
we
we're
reasonably
satisfied
that
that
is
the
case.
We
also
have
the
conditions
and
the
minimum
standards
for
the
keeping
of
those
animals
still
in
place.
So
we
can.
If
a
complaint
was
to
arise,
we
can
investigate
and
deal
with
the
matter
of
the
noise
where
it's
occurring
right.
I
cannot.
A
Now
now
the
noise
test
for
a
bird
right
is
interesting
to
me,
because
do
we
default
back
to
the
the
tests
provided
for
by
the
epa
or
are
there
particular
nuisance
and
noise
tests
for
birds?
Because
plainly,
we
can't
apply
the
dog
barking
test
when
establishing
noise
nuisance.
When
we're
talking
about
the
bird
nuisance.
J
The
the
epa
does
not
provide
an
avenue
for
investigating
animal
noise.
Okay,
domestic
animal
noise
sure
it
actually
defers
it
to
a
local
law
requirement.
The
animal
noise
requirement
of
our
local
law
does
allow
us
to
investigate
it.
It's
not
specifically
to
barking,
it
would
be
any
noise
created
from
an
animal,
so
we
would
just
have
to
look
at
the
period
of
time.
It
occurs
as
well
as
the
impact
on
the
amenity
right.
A
And
my
last
question
just
restated
that
I
heard
during
the
presentation
that
there
may
be
a
permit
or
a
treatment
or
an
approach
taken
for
those
who
are
caring
for
animals.
A
Now,
I'm
not
I'm
not
talking
about
anyone
specifically,
but
you
do
at
least
in
my
community
see
groups
from
time
to
time
that
are
animal
refuges
where
somebody
might
be
providing
care
for
multiple
animals,
because
it's
a
good
and
charitable
thing
to
be
doing,
but
they
have
been
in
contravention
of
the
current
local
law.
So
in
the
proposed
changes,
is
there
a
proposal
to
relax
any
requirements
on
those
who
are
providing
care
to
animals
rescuing
them
like
a
better
word.
J
Council,
I
I
believe
there
was
a
a
requirement
for
a
carer
permit,
in
particular
for
animals.
On
those
regards
I
haven't,
I
must
say
I
would
have
to
take
that
on
notice
to
check
that
now,
but
there
was
a
carer
permit
for
that
purpose
and
for
foster
caring,
yeah.
A
J
A
After
I
just
think
it's
interesting
in
my
experience
again,
I'm
not
speaking
about
any
specific
case.
I've
had
complaint
where
somebody
has
had
a
carer
permit
right,
and
I
find
that
there's
that
creates
interesting
tension
in
the
community
around
here
are
the
rules,
but
then
someone's
able
to
argue
that
they
are
carrying
out
some
charitable
cause
and
and
sometimes
yeah
people
may
question
the
due
process
that
we
apply.
So
I
I
just
think
as
we're
tweaking
these
limits.
A
We
have
to
have
some
regard
to
things
like
carer
permits
that
may
override
these
caps,
if
at
all,
and
maybe
even
reconsider,
where
whether
we
should
be
overriding
them
to
begin
with
last
thing
and
I'll
be
interested
from
again
from
an
officer
point
of
view
on
this
just
the
other
day,
and
it's
just
absolutely
gut-wrenching
to
hear
this.
A
There
was
a
report
on
that
two
days
ago,
in
the
abc,
the
headline
is
five
week
old
boy
mauled
to
death
by
dog,
on
the
new
south
wales,
central
coast,
time
and
time
again
we're
confronted
by
these
harrowing
stories
and
it's
not
just
in
a
backyard
in
a
residential
setting.
These
attacks
also
happen
in
our
parks
and
our
playgrounds.
A
A
A
A
E
Last
year
attacked
by
two
dogs
that
the
gate
was
inadvertently
left
open
and
in
looking
at
the
presentation,
I
have
written
a
tech
penalty
and
I
don't
understand
why
we
can't
have
an
attack
penalty
because
we
knew
where
the
dogs
came
from
the
officers
thoroughly
investigated.
It
and
nothing
happened.
Absolutely
nothing
happened,
but
my
husband
was
hospitalized
and
seriously
impacted
by
it.
It
took
weeks
for
the
infection
to
go
and
he
was
seriously
ill.
That
is
unacceptable.
E
A
Is
it
92
2008.?
Oh
they've,
updated?
Yes,
sorry
2008.
They
legislatively
prevent
council
from
introducing
a
penalty
for
an
attack.
Instead,
their
preferred
approach
is
merely
to
have
us
designate
a
dog
as
menacing,
dangerous
or
to
destroy
it,
which
I
think
is
absurd.
I
think
it's
absolutely
absurd.
Now.
The
reply
from
the
government
is
that
they
have
got
no
appetite
to
reform
the
law,
but
but
my
view
is
that
the
two
penalty
units
should
read
a
three
a
four
or
a
five
where
it's
within
our
power.
A
E
B
So
my
questions
actually
relate
to
that.
The
noise
section
of
your
presentation
and
I'm
interested
in
in
lots
of
places
in
division,
nine
and
probably
across
the
city.
There
are
permissible
land
uses
adjacent
one
another
where
the
rural
residential
zone
almost
boundaries,
the
rural
zone,
and
so
my
questions
relate
to
the
commentary
that
you
you.
You
spoke
kylie
about
the
noise
on
property
or
impacting
you've
used
the
word
receiving
resonance,
and
so
you,
you
used
a
word
like
interfering
with
the
amenity
of
the
given
area,
so
in
lots
of
areas
across
division.
B
J
The
officers
go
out
and
as
part
of
that
diary
information,
they
will
then
be
looking
at
the
anim,
the
behaviors
and
the
animals
that
are
occurring.
So
if
we
are
taking
cattle
or
some
form
in
those
areas,
they
would
then
be
going
back
to
speaking
to
the
owners
of
the
cattle
and
looking
at
that
and
looking
at
what
the
issues
are
around
that
or
what
that
how
the
noise
is
occurring.
If
it
is
a
permissible
activity
it
would.
J
It
may
then
fall
outside
the
local
law
requirements
if
it
is
a
permissible
activity
under
the
town
planning
scheme.
So
we
would
have
to
look
into
that
initially.
If
it
doesn't
fall
into
that
area,
then
we
would
be
assessing
their
situation
from
where
the
person
is
believed
to
be
being
impacted,
so
if
their
property,
if
their
house
is
100
meters
away
from
it,
and
because
it's
a
very
open
area,
how
well?
How
much
of
that
animal
is
actually
impacted.
J
B
So
I
think
what
I'm
trying
to
propose
or
trying
to
ask
for
some
advice
around
is
lawful
or
self-assessable.
Land
uses
in
the
rural
zone
should
not
be
subject
to
any
council
resources
investigating
noise
complaints
from
a
neighbouring
residential
zone.
The
rural
zone
is
a
rural
zone
and
you
should
be
able
to
conduct
lawful
rural
activities
in
that
zone.
B
It
occurs
to
me
in
my
division
anyway,
that
there
are
a
not
insignificant
amount
of
resources
from
top
to
time
from
animal
management
team
investigating
the
noises
of
farm
animals
in
the
rural
zone,
and
I
think
that's
a
poor
use
of
our
resources.
So
I
think
that
when,
when
lawful
or
self-assessable
activity
is
occurring
on
a
block
of
land
or
on
a
property,
you
know
the
animal
management
team
should
receive
the
complaint.
B
Note
the
complaint
and
also
inform
the
complainant
of
the
entitlement
of
of
a
property
owner
to
conduct
lawful
or
self-accessible
activities
on
on
their
property.
I
don't
think
we
should
be
disregarding
it
entirely,
but
but
I
was
even
contented
today
about
a
resident
in
gilston,
who
is
on
a
property
that,
for
many
many
years
was
zoned.
Rural
has
never
been,
the
site
itself
has
never
been
changed
from
rural
and
someone
is
complaining
about
a
rooster
now
I
appreciate
roosters
are
frustrating,
but
you
bought
a
property.
B
B
So
I
would
like
some
advice
about
changes
to
the
local
law
that
that
enable
property
owners
on
land.
B
B
A
And
so
I'm
gonna
ask
a
question
not
to
reframe
it,
but
to
ask
my
own
very
similar
question.
A
My
my
sense
is
that
the
new
approach
should
align
more
closely
with
councillor
toza's
desired
outcomes,
because
the
current
approach
being
very
prescriptive
would
give
automatic
rise
to
a
nuisance
issue,
whereas
the
proposed
law
allows
city
officers
to
exercise
more
discretion
to
establish
what
is
a
reasonable
use
and
reasonable
enjoyment
of
land.
Of
course
it's
got
to
be
a
defensible
decision,
but
city
officers
are
more
empowered
or
would
be
more
empowered
to
exercise
some
judgment
that
pays
regard
to
the
underlying
land
use.
Is
that
correct.
B
Plenty
of
time
my
question
is:
can
you
provide
me
some
advice
about
how
we
can
adjust
the
local
law
or
reflect
that
view?
I
think
the
majority
of
people
in
division-
nine,
which
is
a
primarily
rural
and
rural
residential
area
by
geography,
understand
that
they
chose
to
live
in
an
area
and
even
though
they
might
have
thought
peace
and
quiet
they.
Actually,
you
know
they
should
expect
to
hear
farm
animals
in
farming
areas.
Part
two
of
that
is
where
a
land
use
has
been
where
a
property
has
been
subject
to
a
land
use
application.
B
That
is
inconsistent
with
the
city
plan
and
the
example
I'm
going
to
give.
You
is
wedding
venues
in
the
rural
zone,
so
wedding
venues
and
function.
Centers
are
a
permissible
not
not
permissible,
so
that
they're
they're
they're
in
our
city
plan.
They
are,
I
mean
they
require
a
material
change
of
use,
application
and
impact
a
suitable
application.
I
would
like
to
make
sure
that
they
don't
slip
through
the
cracks
when
it
comes
to
noise
complaint.
B
I
appreciate
this
is
about
mostly
animals,
but
I
would
hate
to
think
that
a
law
that
we
introduced
here
had
a
kind
of
corresponding
impact
when
someone
made
a
different
type
of
noise
in
the
rural
zone.
So
I
don't
want
anything
to
do
with
this
law
to
impact
other
sorts
of
noise
for
impact
accessible
applications
that,
even
if
they
are
approved.
A
And
could
we
just
add
to
that
advice
that
you
might
solicit?
Could
we
get
an
understanding
of
how
this
may
or
may
not
interface,
with
the
reverse
amenity
policy
changes
that
we
took
with
respect
to
nuisance?
A
Let
me
understand
what
you
mean
by
that.
So
probably
last
year
we
considered
a
report
through
the
planning
committee
that
looked
at
the
issue
of
managing
nuisance
and
established
a
principle
of
reverse
amenity.
In
other
words,
somebody
that
moved
into
an
area
and
carried
out
a
new
land
use
shouldn't
be
in
a
position
where
they
can
complain
about
an
existing
user
that
has
been
carrying
out
a
use
for
a
long
time.
A
So,
yes,
you
know
you
might
have
old
mate
there
with
the
cow
and
somebody
moves
in
after
the
fact,
but
that
adjacent
block
of
land
has
been
used
as
a
hobby
farm
and
has
had
cows
on
it.
For
some
time,
the
cow
owner
shouldn't
have
their
rights
prejudiced,
merely
because
somebody
has
moved
in
and
caused
complaints.
So
we
considered
that
through
the
planning
committee.
A
I
think
it
was
last
year
and
I
think
it's
the
intention
is
to
incorporate
that
into
a
planning
scheme
amendment,
but
I
could
have
that
process
wrong
in
my
head,
just
because
it
deals
with
the
planning
scheme
and
nuisance.
I
thought
it
might
be
useful
to
get
some
advice
at.
B
A
E
Thank
you
very
much
chairman
I
have
some
concern
about.
The
I
think,
what's
being
proposed
is
to
remove
the
effective
control
requirement
for
dogs
off
leash
and
to
reword
it
to
say
as
long
as
the
dog
is
visible,
but
then
it
went
on
to
suggest
that
the
dog
needed
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
voice
control,
but
your
dog
can
be
visible
and
not
hear
you.
So
I
I
have
a
bit
of
a
problem
with
that.
E
Okay
in
relation
to
the
keeping
of
hens,
I
have
a
huge
concern
about
that,
because
I'm
aware
of
a
property,
that's
a
waterfront
property
that
keeps
hens
at
the
back
and
opens
the
gate
of
the
enclosure
and
the
hens
cluck
their
way
along
the
sand
every
morning
and
every
afternoon,
and
it's
highly
irritating
to
the
people
who
who
live
there.
E
So
in
the
proposed
law,
I
would
be
more
comfortable
with
a
permit
being
required
for
any
land
under
possibly
2
000
square
meters,
and
that
there
be
a
requirement
also
for
the
hens
to
be
constrained
by
an
enclosure
that
matches
the
150
square
meters
per
bird,
because
the
way
it's
suggested
at
the
moment,
the
hens
could
just
cluck
around
the
backyard.
Couldn't
they
and
as
long
as
they're,
not
within
a
certain
distance
of
a
residence.
E
Now
you
can
get
a
house
on
1300
square
metres
where
the
10
meters
is
clearly
possible
between
the
residences,
with
hens
clucking
around
the
backyard.
It's
it's
very
annoying
in
an
urban
community.
So
were
your
considerations
based
around
possibly
the
administrative
cost
of
issuing
permits,
rather
than
the
amenity
benefits
to
the
community?
If
a
permit
were
necessary.
J
Thank
you
through
the
chair
council
gates.
The
the
issues
around
the
I
guess
the
permit
being
removed
was
not
around
the
the
governance
and
administrative
costs
associated
with
that.
They
are
very,
very
few
permits
that
have
been
issued
for
anything
other
than
excess
dogs
or
other
excess
animals.
In
relation
to
hens
we've.
I
have
not
seen
one
across
my
table
in
four
years
for
a
hen
application
the
minimum
standards,
while
the
permit
itself
were
not
was
suggested
to
be
removed.
J
The
requirements
to
hold
those
hens
is
still
in
place
and
those
include
they
must
be
contained
within
an
enclosure
within
the
property
boundary
itself,
and
it
must
be
at
least
one
meter
from
every
boundary
fence
and
the
10
meters
from
any
other
dwelling
it
does
not
allow.
It
does
not
suggest
any
free
range
ability
within
it.
E
Okay,
but
it
doesn't
help
with
my
concern
that
an
enclosure
may
also
be
10
meters
away
from
a
dwelling
and
that
it's
damned
annoying
in
an
urban
community
to
hear
hens
clucking
incessantly-
and
you
know
I
I
just-
I-
have
a
problem
with
that
on
a
small
allotment
under
2
000
square
meters,.
A
Yeah
so
two
two
issues
there,
I
suppose,
council
gates
you've,
got
a
view
that
hens
should
be
out
of
a
suburban
setting.
Yep
number
one
number
two
on
the
issue
of
assessment
and
permits.
A
The
analogy
in
my
head
is
that
it's
proposal
to
move
hands
from
code
accessible
to
self-assessible
is
probably,
I
think
what
officers
are
seeking
to
achieve.
So
it's
it's
not
so
much
that
the
requirements
are
being
relaxed,
although
they
are
in
this
one
sense,
it's
more
that
the
d.a
needn't
be
lodged
and
they
can
get
a
private
certifier.
A
Can
we
sign
off
on
their
hands,
but
take
your
point
about
the
noise.
For
me,
it's
feces
well.
E
A
E
And
on
a
waterfront
too,
it's
where
there's
hens.
A
The
hen
house
or
the
hen
party
map
penn's
party
map,
councillor
castro,
then
council
paterson,
oh
sorry,
counselor
young
councillor
castro,
councillor
patterson.
My
apologies
thank.
G
You
very
much
chair
mine
is
again
with
the
noise
nuisance,
but
with
the
dogs.
Now
in
a
lot
of
our
built
up
areas.
G
Obviously,
the
dogs,
quite
a
quite
often
the
dogs,
are
in
the
backyard
and
we're
behind
six
foot,
concrete
fences
with
gates
and
that
on
it,
so
people
either
side
are
making
complaints
about
noises,
but
our
officers
are
coming
to
the
front
and
sitting
out
the
front
and
saying
well,
no,
we
don't
hear
a
continuous
noise,
because
we've
got
a
six
foot
high
fence,
no
access
to
the
property
and
the
dogs
are
in
the
backyard.
Now
I've
had
this
complaint
time
and
time
again
where
the
officers
come
and,
and
they
acknowledge
the
officers
have
been
there.
G
What
sort
of
reassurance
I
guess
to
our
residents
can
be
put
into
place
that
you
know
they're
they're,
experiencing
the
noise
in
the
rear
of
their
property,
but
our
offices
are
actually
quite
sometimes
quite
a
few
meters
away
or
hundreds
of
meters
away
at
times
from
where
the
noise
actually
is
and
they'll
say.
Well,
there
was
no
noise
evidence
while
we
were
there,
how
can
we
we
address
that
issue.
J
Yeah
and
through
the
check,
yes,
council,
young,
the
the
officers
when
they
do
our
investigations
relation
to
that
will
often
initially
assess
from
the
front
of
a
property
just
to
get
an
idea
of
whether
the
time
of
the
diary
is
appropriate.
J
If
there
is
any
level
of
noise
or
anything,
they
do
have
an
opportunity,
they
will
either
utilize
rear
neighbors
rather
than
the
complainant,
not
to
alert
the
complainant
nor
the
owner
of
the
dog.
That
way
we're
utilizing
a
third
party
area
if
it
is
in
the
rear
of
a
property
or
we
do
have
the
opportunity
to
meet
with
the
complainant,
where
they're
actually
being
impacted.
So
it
may
require
us
at
excuse
me
at
2am
in
the
morning
to
sit
in
a
bedroom
of
a
complainant
and
record
that
noise
for
that
period
of
time.
G
And
an
additional
question:
if
that's
all
right,
chair
the
other
one
is
without
I
know
our
local
law
officers
when
they
go
where
they're
wearing
cameras
and
we're
able
to
do
our
animal
management
officers
have
the
same
same
benefit
of
having
recordings
there.
But
quite
often
we
hear
from
officers
or
animal
owners
that
you
know
we
didn't
and
I've
heard
it
does.
We
didn't
give
the
correct
information.
G
J
J
Yes,
that
has
we
on
the
introduction
of
those
cameras.
Approximately
five
years
ago,
there
has
been
a
reduction
in
that
we
do
find.
I
guess
that
the
where
there
is
always
a
minority
where
they
are
still
occurring
and
that
level
of
in
of
aggression
is,
is
greater
in
more
recent
times,
but
there
have
been
less
incidents
of
aggression
from
the
public.
E
J
There
are
there,
yes,
council,
there
are
opportunities.
There
are
some
restraints
around
our
operational
hours,
however,
where
we
do
receive
complaints,
and
it
is
for
a
very
particular
time
of
4
30
in
the
morning
or
it's
a
bit
harder
in
winter.
It's
dark
still.
J
A
Yeah
I
mean
patrols,
I
think
councillor
beldon
lumsen
and
on
a
unity
ticket
on
this.
It's
so
important
that
we
do
get
patrols
when
behaviour
is
at
its
worst.
I
mean
during
this
meeting
I
was
contacted
by
residents
just
beside
themselves
again
at
ravina,
common
and
again
at
lake
or
because
of
a
minority
of
animal
owners.
Doing
the
wrong
thing-
and
I
just
want
to
say
this
as
well-
it
must
it
must
be
so
frustrating
working
in
the
space,
knowing
that
there
are
so
many
gold
coasters
who
are
failing
to
register
their
animals.
A
I
think,
when
I
spoke
with
city
officers
about
this
initially
I
flagged
with
them
that
it's
great
amending
the
local
law,
but
it
must
have
been
years
since
we've
had
resources
through
corporate
communication
to
actually
reach
the
community
and
encourage
them
to
take
the
simple
step
of
registering
their
animals
and
communicating
to
them
what
the
consequences
can
be.
It's
a
huge
blind
spot
I
feel
for
us
and
if
we
are
to
proceed
with
these
amendments
in
some
form,
I
think
we
need
a
big
public
campaign
in
the
space.
A
H
Yeah
thanks,
mr
chairman,
look.
I
have
the
similar
concerns
to
councillor
gates
with
the
hens,
but
that
one's
been
covered,
because
mine
are
exactly
the
same,
I'm
not
sure
about
the
2000.
That's
about
the
only
thing
we
might
differ
on,
but
four
thousand,
but
certainly
on
on
residential
properties.
I
think
there's
a
whole
host
of
issues
that
come
with
hens,
which
is
a
concern,
but
the
other
two
issues,
one
again
actually
I'll
go
to
one
that
councillor
gates
has
already
raised.
It's
the
off-leash
dog
area.
H
That
concerns
me
greatly
because
feasibly-
and
I
don't
can't
think
of
any
off-leash
dog
areas
in
the
city-
not
that
I
get
out
much
but
but
feasibly
someone
could
literally
be
sitting
in
a
coffee
shop
across
the
road
while
the
dog's
there,
because
they
can
say
well,
I
can
still
see
it
but
or
they
could
be
involved
in
another
activity
in
a
big
open
space,
doing
their
own
thing,
playing
with
the
kids,
whatever
paying
no
attention
whatsoever
to
to
to
the
dog.
That
really
concerns
me
a
lot
so.
A
A
H
Clear
that
absolutely,
but
it
then
comes
down
to
the
interpretation
of
when
the
dog
is,
is
in
your
line
of
sight
or
your
vision
and
and
the
distances
that
that's
what
concerns
me,
because
the
dog
can
be
in
your
line
of
sight,
but
you
can
be
you
know,
100
meters
away,
you
know,
kicking
a
ball
around
or
whatever
and
you're,
not
paying
any
attention
to
the
dog
at
all,
at
least
with
the
10
meters
it
just
even
though
that
might
have
been
a
you
know,
a
bit
too
restrictive
as
such,
that
that's
the
only
that's.
A
Just
because
I
really
value
your
opinion
as
the
the
former
chair
of
the
committee
and
long-serving
counsellor
that
off-leash
bit
do,
you
think
say:
you've
got
a
fenced
off
leash
area
right.
I
regard
that
as
being
different
to
an
unfenced
off
leash
area.
So
do
you
think
there's
something
to
be
said
about
applying
a
distance
test
in
an
unfenced
area,
but
in
an
enclosure
allowing
that
dog
to
have
free
rain
inside
the
fenced
area?
Despite
where
you
might
be.
A
H
Look,
there's
definitely
a
difference
between
a
fenced
area
and
an
unfenced
area,
but
we're
still
talking
about
distance.
If
you've
got
a
big
fenced
area,
you
can
still
be
a
considerable
way
away
from.
You
know
what
I'm
saying
from
from
your
animal.
So
it's
it.
It
still
concerns
me.
I
don't
know
how
sorry
yeah.
E
Must
have
the
dog
being
under
the
effective
control
of
the
owner,
no
matter
whether
it's
fenced
or
unfenced,
you
see
dogs
that
are
not
effectively
controlled
within
least
leash-free
areas
and
in
off-leash
areas
that
are
unfenced
so
fenced
or
not.
Yes,
we
must
firm
up,
I
believe,
on
effective
control
and
I
don't
think
being
visible,
as
is
suggested
in
the
proposed
law
here
and
able
to
respond
to
controlled
voice
command,
says
it
as
thoroughly
as
it
used
to
when
it
said
the
dog
must
be
under
the
effective
control
of
the
owner.
E
I
think
that's
all
it
needs
to
say
in
the
proposed
law,
because
that
covers
off
on
it
all
and
for
us,
as
representatives
in
responding
to
complaint
from
the
community
and
when
people
take
their
leash,
unleash
their
dog.
It's
very
simple:
to
get
the
message
across
that
your
dog
must
be
under
your
effective
control
least
around
the
world.
A
A
E
I
just
want
to
make
the
point
that
dogs
must
be
able
to
be
controlled
by
voice
commands.
Yes,
most
dogs
are
able
to
be
controlled
by
those
commands,
but
in
the
specific
circumstance
of
you
unleashing
your
dog,
I
I
just
think
we
need
to
make
it
far.
More
simple
is
my
personal
view
than
all
those
words
describing
effective
control.
Effective
control
sums
it
up,
and
I
want
that
to
be
in
the
law
personally,.
A
E
A
A
K
That
that's
probably
my
error
in
the
way.
I
phrased
that
in
paraphrasing
that,
in
that
slide,
the
change
being
made
is
that
this
dog
will
still
be
required
to
be
under
effective
control.
It's
the
definition
of
effective
control
which
is
being
altered
in
so
much
as
that.
The
dog
must
now
be
visible
to
the
person
instead
of
the
requirement
for
it
to
be
within
the
10
meters.
A
Just
broadening
the
description
so
currently
and
like
your
dog
could
be
behind
you
having
a
squabble
with
another
dog
and
it
may
meet
the
definition
currently
of
effective
control
because
it's
within
10
meters,
the
new
approach,
is
to
say
you
actually
need
to
be
looking
at
your
dog
and
being
able
to
exercise
in
that
moment,
control
over
the
animal
councillor.
Castro's
point,
then,
is
well
ultimately,
how
far
can
that
distance
be
and
do
you
practically
lose
the
effect
of
effective
control
if
a
dog's
at
the
other
end
of
a
dog
park,
correct.
H
H
H
So
forgive
me
I'm
not
sort
of
trying
to
like
a
dog
or
anything
like
that,
but
the
breeding
one,
the
breeding
permits,
which
I
mean
to
whom
are
the
breeding
permits,
going
to
be
relaxed
so
for
what
type
of
animal
breeding
so
worried
about
puppy
farms.
H
But
I'm
more
concerned
about
well
dogs,
yes,
but
I'm
particularly
concerned
about
cats
cat
breeders,
because
over
my
my
years
in
in
the
chair,
there
were
a
number
of
issues
and
one
in
particular
in
my
very
early
days
of
council,
where
somebody
was
literally
breeding
cats
in
a
resident
on
a
residential
property
and
we're
talking
about
a
lot
of
cats
on
that
property
and
the
stench
for
the
for
the
neighbors,
let
alone
the
noise
was,
it
was
just
unbearable,
and
and
so
it
really
concerns
me.
H
J
And
through
the
chair
councillor,
yes,
the
animal
management
cats
and
dogs
act
took
on
the
requirement
for
breda
legislation.
A
couple
of
years
ago,
gold
coast
council
were
fortunate
to
run
a
pilot
program
on
the
breeder
permits,
as
and
as
why
it
was
put
into
the
local
law.
Now
it's
a
duplication
of
the
same
requirements
under
the
state
legislation,
so
this
is
an
opportunity
to
remove
it
because
it
doesn't
really
add
any
value
to
the
to
what's
already
in
place,
particularly
in
relation
to
dogs.
J
In
regards
to
cats,
we
already
have
sufficient
law
in
place
to
limit
numbers
of
cats
to
be
kept
on
properties.
We
only
allow
maximum
of
four,
I
believe,
on
any
given
property
without
a
permit
and
therefore,
if
there
was
ever
any
concerns
around
the
breeding
or
the
numbers
or
so
forth,
we
would
manage
the
numbers
based
on
the
current
local
law
requirements.
A
I
So
I
I
visit
a
lot
of
dog
parks
and
a
frequent
visitor
to
the
botanical
gardens
dog
park,
sun
valley,
musgrave
and
the
spit
so
two
things
the
first
one
with
your
point
about
the
on
leash
and
that
those
perhaps
attaching
those
effective
control
points
to
the
offly
on
leash.
I
disagree
with
that.
I
have
met
numerous
dogs
who
really
first
of
all
as
puppies
can't
be
controlled,
but
need
to
be
socialized
and
they're
on
a
leash
or
dogs
that
really
are
quite
dangerous,
but
are
on
leash
and
again
are
getting
socialized.
I
There's
one
dog
that
comes
down
to
sun
valley
and
he
wears
a
little
cape.
That
says
you
know
stay
clear,
I'm
not
not
a
safe
dog,
but
it
would
be
a.
I
think,
we'd
be
doing
a
disservice
if
we
didn't
actually
allow
someone
to
take
a
dog
out
like
that
on
the
leash,
so
I
think
just
having
the
leash
if
you've
got,
that
is
sufficient.
I
My
experience
is
that
owners
who
have
dogs
who
may
be
dangerous
or
a
bit
of
a
concern
on
leashes
are
very,
very
aware
of
it
and
sensitive
to
it.
So
that's
why
I'm
I
would
support
the
officer's
existing
definition
there
and
not
not
make
that
alteration.
The
second
thing
about
the
off
leash.
I
just
wanted
to
give
council
counsellor
castro
with
his
recur
concern
about
the
the
not
being
on
a
distance.
I
It
is
important.
I
think,
that
we
can
give
those
dogs
the
distance,
so
you
hit
a
tennis
ball
for
a
dog
to
get
you
become
more
than
10
meters
very
quickly.
It's
a
pretty
important
part
of
a
dog's
life
that
they
can
go
and
do
that
so
again,
I
think
that
this
really
makes
sense,
you're
visible,
that
they
will
respond,
but
it's
not
written
to
that
specific
criteria.
I
did
have
just
two
other
points.
I
One
question
was
it's
great
to
see
the
work
done
on
protecting
our
koalas,
I'm
wondering
if
there's
anything
with
regard
to
other
smaller,
maybe
not
quite
so,
cute
wildlife
in
with
regards
to
cats,
who
probably
do
far
more
prolific
damage
to
our
wildlife
in
our
city.
Is
there
any
consideration
of
that.
J
Through
the
chair
councillor
the
requirements,
I
I
assume
in
relation
to
cats
being
able
to
wander
and
more
than
any
our
current
local
law
actually
requires
cats
to
be
contained
to
an
enclosure
at
all
times.
It
might
have
been
an
interesting
news
recently
that
victoria
knox
city
council
are
just
introducing
a
cat
curfew.
We
already
have
that
in
play.
Our
local
law
actually
requires
a
cat
owner
to
make
sure
their
cat
is
contained
to
an
enclosure
at
all
times.
A
Send
it
your
way
through
internal
mail,
and
I
like
I
I'll
bring
them
along
to
neighborhood
watch
meetings,
because
you
know
neighborhood
watch
residents
tend
to
be
vigilant
in
the
space
and
they
will
catch
a
cat
and-
and
you
know
it's
up
to
them-
to
make
sure
that's
done
humanely
and
then
they
contact
our
animal
management
team
who
then
deal
with
the
cat
and
reunite
it
with
its
owner,
but
35
on
ebay,
a
quick
fix.
I
Good
thank
you
for
getting
me
up
to
speed
on
that
one
and
then
just
lastly,
regarding
the
the
noise
matter
and
the
duration
and
interference
requirements
now,
which
certainly
make
a
lot
of
sense
and
the
complaints
that
I've
dealt
with
go
to.
I
think
this
is
addresses
a
lot
of
the
complaints
that
I
receive
in
terms
of
that
current
law
and
it
being
very
prescriptive.
I
I
was
just
curious
about
that.
First
part:
a
the
interference,
a
person's
reasonable
use,
so
we
don't
have
any
noise.
You
don't
have
any
decibel
measures
effectively
on
that,
so
that
does
really
provide
you
a
lot
of
flexibility
on
that
now
right,
because
my
my
understanding
is
that
if
you,
if
you
hear
a
noise
once
it
may
be
at
and
it's
at
a
certain
decibel,
then
it
might
not
affect
you
too
much
might
be
a
low
decibel.
But
if
you've
got
that
consistently
going,
then
your
your
mind's
there
picking
that
sound
up
all
the
time.
J
Through
the
chair,
yes,
that
is
correct
counselor.
It
does
allow
us
to
consider
how
a
person
living
in
that
property
for
many
years
has
had
to
endure
that
noise
and,
whilst
it
might
not
impact
on
us
specifically
it's
what
they're
put
what
the
person
themselves
is
doing
and
the
potential
for
it
to
be
an
ongoing
issue.
Yes,.
F
Thank
you.
I
just
said
two
questions.
First,
one
when
you
brought
up
the
dog
registration
actually
had
a
question
about
our
what
enforcement
actions
we
have
available
to
us
for
people
experiencing
homelessness
that
have
pets
that
obviously
don't
have
a
place
of
residence
to
register
their
pet
too.
A
A
F
No,
if
it
wants
to
be
taken
offline
in
regards
to
your
comment
chair,
I
know,
obviously,
homelessness
can
affect
people
of
all
ages.
It's
not
so
much
the
registration
side
of
things,
I'm
happy
to
be
compassion.
I
understand
that
not
everyone
has
those
options,
it's
more
just
when
the
animals
cause
a
nuisance
to
the
broader
community.
That
was
more.
My
oh
yeah,
okay,.
G
So
through
the
chair
know
that
definitely
some
people
who
are
experiencing
homelessness
have
animals
that
are
registered
so,
but
I'm
happy
to
take
on
those
and
give
you
further
advice:
counsellor,
okay,.
F
Yeah
and
my
second
question
less
sensitive,
there
was
consultation
for
the
dog
off
leash
areas
around
the
city,
when's
that
due
to
come
back.
J
Through
through
the
chair,
that's
presently
sitting
at
the
reviewing
of
the
336
submissions
in
relation
to
those
those
and
most
submissions
were
more
than
an
a4
page
full
of
information.
So
I'm
presently
reviewing
all
those
I'm
hoping
to
have
them
completed
with
within
the
next
four
weeks.
At
which
time
then
it
will
come
back
up.
There
will
be
a
need
to
speak
to
a
number
of
councillors
whose
areas
where
those
submissions
are
either
for
or
against,
to
get
a
bit
more
detail
on.
A
Okay,
great
counselor.
B
And
removal
of
prohibitions
on
acreage,
that's
it
there
when
we
do
I'm
conscious
of
making
sure
that
geese
and
ducks
and
turkey's
probably
no
problem
on
most
acreage,
particularly
large
rural
lots.
You
know,
but
when
it,
when
our
animal
management
team
respond
to
a
query
about
or
respond
to
a
complaint
about
noise
and
it,
it
becomes
evident
that
those
that
property
owner
is
breeding
those
for
sale.
B
Do
we
refer
that
to
the
developer
compliance
team,
because
it
occurs
to
me:
there's
a
there's:
a
transition
between
having
pets
and
being
on
a
rural
property,
but
if
it's
only
four
thousand
square
meters,
some
of
those
properties
are
quite
close
and
I
can
understand
if
there's
lots
of
geese
or
ducks
or
turkeys
being
bred
there
for
sale.
That
would
be
a
different
proposition.
So
can
you
tell
me
what
happens
when
when
that's
observed
through
the
chair.
J
Through
the
chair
council,
if
that
occurs,
and
it's
identified
through
means
that
it
is
deemed
to
be
for
a
commercial
activity,
it
would
then
go
to
development
compliance
to
determine
whether
that's
intensification
of
the
use
or
requiring
mcu
of
any
type.
It
wouldn't
therefore
comes
for
animal
management
with
the
local
laws.
We
would
then
refer
it
over
to
development
compliance
to
review
on
the
breeding
side
as
a
commercial
activity.
B
What
are
the
through
the
chair
again?
What
are
the
current
numbers
for
geese
ducks
and
turkeys
on
an
acreage
property.
K
B
Notice,
I'm
and
again
what
I
think
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at
is
that
on
a
normal
rural
property,
that's
outside
the
rural
residential
zone.
I
don't
think
there
should
be
any
prohibition
on
on
bird
life
or
bird
pets
or
whatever.
If
you're
on.
If
you're
in
a
rural
zone,
there
shouldn't
really
be
provisions.
We
shouldn't
be
engaging
in
that
in
a
rural
residential
zone.
B
I'm
conscious
that
some
people
are
effectively
conducting
commercial
activity
and
I
would
hate
to
think
that,
just
because
it's
not
an
animal
management
issue,
we
don't
just
leave
it.
We
should
actually
investigate
it
as
an
awful
commercial
activity
in
a
residential
area,
and
when
that
occurs,
I
would
I
mean
I
don't
know
what
other
counselors
feel
like,
but
I'd
probably
like
to
know
that
that's
occurring.
B
Is
there
any
mechanism
by
which
the
animal
management
team
could
just
have
some
sort
of
note
to
make
the
counselor
aware
once
a
month
of
the
development
compliance
issues
that
have
been
referred
from,
animal
management?
Is
that
doable
or
not?
It
just
helps
us
manage
complaints.
G
Through
the
chair,
I
I
can't
see
why
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
provide
from
our
you
know
our
activities
if
they're
as
it
relates
to
counsellor
divisions
feedback
as
to
how
we've,
how
many
we
may
have
referred
on.
A
All
right
well,
thank
you
for
today
I
realized
that
there
is
no
substantive
decision
concerning
this
presentation
today
that
will
be
dealt
with
in
the
governance,
administration
and
finance
committee.
But
before
I
close
the
meeting,
I
might
just
invite
councillor
gates
just
trying
to
say:
where
did
you
land
on
the
gbi?
Were
you
happy
to
oh
great.
D
E
E
A
Just
interested
in
your
thoughts
about
the
fine
for
dogs
that
are
not
under
effective
control,
I.e,
dogs
that
have
attacked
another.
E
E
Wandering
at
large-
oh
it
just
said,
wandering
at
large
and
and
by
that
I
presumed
that
that
meant
that
the
gate
was
left
open
or
the
dog
wasn't
under
effective
control,
and
that
would
just
increase
it
to
that
penalty
and
regardless
of
whether
they
attack
or
not.
I
think
that
we
should
make
people
aware
that
we're
serious
about
them,
keeping
their
dog
either
housed
or
under
their
effective
control.
A
So
I'm
I'm
100
with
you.
I
just
don't
know
whether
this
motion,
as
it
reads,
deals
with
animals
that
are
out
and
about
an
off-leash
dog
area,
for
example,
and
who
are
not
under
effective
control.
I'm.
C
G
Wanting
to
point
out
there's
two
different
offences
at
the
moment
wandering
at
large
and
not
under
effective
control,
and
so
it
would
be
helpful
to
actually
itemize
them
individually
or
to
note
them
as
being
intended
to
be
the
same.
If
that's,
what
your
your
goal
is.
A
A
E
D
D
A
Okay,
so
let's
strengthen
that
then,
rather
than
asking
city
officers
to
consider
it
and
thereby
rule
it
out,
potentially
counselor
gates.
A
B
E
A
Yeah
and
I
suppose
the
at
full
council
so
next
tuesday,
anyone
who
wanted
to
walk
that
back
would
have
an
opportunity
of
suggesting
three
and
four
or
to
revert
it
to
two
and
two
I
yeah
I
couldn't.
C
Does
that
make
sense?
No,
so
so
I'm
interested
in
knowing
the
numbers
so
like
the
volume
of
numbers
for
the
those
two
different
categories,
and
what
would
the
category
that
you
would
most
like
to
issue
a
notice
for
if
there
was
an
attack
on
by
an
animal
that
wasn't
under
control
because
it
was
just
wandering
the
streets?
Okay,.
C
Yeah
so
so
my
understanding
is
the
city,
for
example,
has
very
few
declared
dangerous
dogs.
You
know,
there's
there's,
there's
not
a
vast
number
of
them,
but,
like
I
mean
it's,
those
animals
in
particular
that
I'm
also
interested
in
making
sure
that
I
appropriately
control
and
aren't
out
and
all
of
those
type
of
things.
But
I
think
if
we
had
a
little
bit
more
information
in
regards
to
the
numbers
that
might
help
guide
us
in
regards
to
the.
A
A
And
I
hate
pointing
to
specific
cases,
but
that
recent
death,
my
reading
of
the
media
reports,
is
that
that
animal
was
subject
to
a
council
and
not
our
council,
but
a
council's
investigation
between
yep.
So
there
was
an
in
an
alleged
incident.
The
animal
was
under
investigation
and
before
that,
investigation
was
brought
to
a
conclusion.
Unfortunately,
this
child
has
passed
again,
that's
just
based
on
the
media
reports
and
I'm
not
here
to
prejudice
anybody's
right
to
natural
justice
or
justice
due
process.
A
But
but
could
I
just
put
it
two
city
offices
in
the
setting
that
I
would
hope
that
we
have
processes
as
a
city
to
deal
firmly
in
cases
of
suspected
menacing
or
or
attack,
so
that
we
can
avoid
similar
situations
unfolding
in
our
own
city,
something
you
need
to
respond
to,
but
it's
just
something
that's
weighing
on
me.
Given
the
scale
of
the
tragedy
counselors
any
further
questions,
we've
got
counselor
gates
moving
and
I'm
happy
to
second
that
motion.
G
G
B
B
A
Okay,
would
you
like
to
open
council
gates.
E
Well,
I
think
it's
been
a
really
productive
conversation
today
and
I
I
really
believe
that
we
want
our
community
to
enjoy
their
pet
ownership,
but
responsibly
so,
and
we
also
want
to
make
sure
that
the
community
is
aware
that
we
want
people
to
be
safe
on
the
streets.
We
want
people
to
be
safe
at
off
leash
areas
and
on
the
on
leash
as
well.
E
So
when
they've
got
their
pets
on
leash
as
well,
I
think
we
need
to
be
serious
about
it
in
terms
of
the
penalty
units
that
we
can
apply
for
offences
that
occur
and
they
do
occur
in
our
city
and
it's
unfortunate,
but
I'm
really
pleased
too,
that
we've
teased
out
the
way
that
animal
management
can
help
in
terms
of
declared
dogs
and
dogs
where
an
incident
may
happen.
E
I
hope
that
we
as
a
council
have
given
you
enough
scope
to
make
sure
that
your
efforts
can
be
serious
in
seizing
a
dog
where
necessary
to
prevent
any
occurrence
such
as
we've
seen
elsewhere
this
week.
So
I
think
this
will
be
a
good
outcome.
C
Really
against
it
other
than
the
fact
that
I
am
interested
in
that
information,
because
it
may
very
well
be
that
it
makes
some
sense
to
not
have
the
equal,
the
four
penalty
units
for
the
two
offenses.
It
might
actually
make
more
sense
to
have
a
higher
penalty
for
a
particular
incident.
But
if
we
can
get
that
before,
council,
I'd
appreciate
that
and
likewise
just
that
information
in
regards
it
might
be,
for
example,
that
there
is
a
category
that
you
would.
C
A
That's
involved
in
a
breach,
whether
we
do
have
recourse
under
the
legislation
to
issue
a
fine
or
we
may
be
compelled
to
then
pursue
a
destruction.
Order
like
like
that.
That's
interesting
to
me
as
well,
because
my
understanding
is
that
we've
been
limited
in
the
ability
to
find
those
particular
dogs.
J
Yeah
through
the
chair
just
for
clarity
on
that
one,
if
a
declared
animal
is
in
breach
of
any
of
the
conditions,
it
falls
under
the
animal
management
act,
not
our
local
law
in
relation
to
that
they
would
receive
a
fine
under
that
for
the
breach
of
conditions
and,
additionally,
the
fine
for
under
local
law
of
wandering
at
large
or
not
effective
control.
There
is
those
avenues
and
the
seizure
powers
fall
within
the
act
as
well,
which
are
very
solid
for
us.
Okay,.
A
Great
well
would
anyone
like
to
speak
against
we've
had
one
four
one,
great
other
contribution
kind
of
gates.
Would
you
like
to
close.
E
Only
in
saying
I
appreciate
councillor
owen
jones
point
of
view
with
this,
and
there
will
be
certainly
an
opportunity
for
input
following
the
receipt
of
further
advice
from
the
officers
before
full
council
and
I'm
more
than
open
to
an
amendment
at
full
council.
If
the
officers
believe
we
can
get
better
impacts
by
changing
those
penalties,.
A
Council
is
like
yeah
put
that
to
a
vote
all
those
in
favor
all
those
against
that's
carried
unanimously
any
further
general
business
items,
no
declare
the
meeting
closed
at
704.
Thank
you.